The Hellenistic reading of Paul

[Rupert Pupkin]

The purpose of this thread is to explore what I have called "the Hellenistic reading" of Paul. By this I mean those scholarly approaches that see Paul as essentially holding to a Hellenistic ontology, and which seek to understand his thought in that context. I hold to this view, and I want to discuss it with both critics and sympathizers to it. I invite all, whether Christians, atheists, agnostics, mythic Jesusers, or whoever, to participate. Because my time is limited I may not be able to respond to every point, but that's OK, post away as many ideas as you can.

One constraint: I would request that the discussion focus only upon the universally accepted Pauline canon, namely, these 7 books: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galations, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians. While there might be many Twebbers who feel that Paul wrote the other books in the NT attributed to him, I do not want to be derailed by that argument here. You are welcome to participate in this discussion whatever your view on the questions of authorship, but please try to argue your case regarding Paul's views from the 7 books listed above. To put this another way: any attack on the Hellenistic reading of Paul that appeals primarily to the deutero-Pauline books will be unconvincing to modern scholars, so if you want your case to stand up in general terms, base it on these 7 books.

For the record, I will state my own position clearly straight up:

(a) I am an orthodox Christian (I believe in the trinity, hypostatic union, and so forth).

(b) I do not hold to inerrancy in its classical evangelical form. I do not believe that Paul was an orthodox Christian in our terms, or that he believed the trinity, or so forth. I do not believe that anyone believed the trinity as we know it prior to the 3rd century. I do not believe that Paul wrote other than the 7 books listed above. This, of course, raises all sorts of theological questions in relation to my orthodoxy, but I do not wish to address those questions here. Let me suffice to say that I do not believe that Paul's opinion on theological matters should govern our views on such matters, and that I think that God could speak prophetically through Paul in his writing without him being aware of it, and even when the ideas he himself was expressing were wrong. In short, I think there is a deeper, mystical sense to scripture. But that debate is for another day.

For this thread, I want to concentrate not on theology, but on the historical question of what Paul actually thought, what he was saying in his historical context. How we might integrate that into broader theological concerns, if we should choose to do so, is not something I want to deal with here.

OK. So much for the intro. Now I want to make a brief background argument on why the claim that Paul might have been a Hellenist should not be rejected on a priori grounds. Many who criticize the Hellenistic Paul approach, it seems to me, do so an the a priori basis that as a Jewish Pharisee, he would not have had a Hellenistic worldview, but a Jewish one. So let us deal with that issue briefly.

Paul, as far as we know, was born in Tarsus. Tarsus was a Greek-speaking and thoroughly Hellenistic city in modern Turkey. Paul was not a Palestinian Jew, unlike the other apostles. His first language was almost certainly Greek. He probably learnt the OT mainly from the LXX, at least until he began his Rabbinic studies. Paul claims to have been a Pharisee, and I see no reason to disbelieve this (although some scholars have questioned it), but I also see no reason to automatically assume that he therefore adopted the worldview of Palestinian Jews. His mission interests were to the Gentiles, not the Jews, and this suggests some natural affinity with them. Furthermore, history is littered with examples of people who were raised in one particular religious or ethnic environment, but who later in life became enamoured of another culture altogether and adopted it as their own. I could mention, off the top of my head, the German author Herman Hesse, who adopted Hinduism. We have little information about Paul's education and reading, or where he spent most of his life prior to his conversion, but it is absolutely quite possible that he was thoroughly versed in Hellenistic thinking, and familiar with Hellenistic religion. On occasions he quoted the Greek poets. In short, there is just no reason to assume on an a priori basis that his thought-world must have been Jewish. We have to go to the texts.

This is an enormous area and I am a bit at a loss how to start out. Perhaps I could do so as follows. What does the Hellenistic reading of Paul claim about his theology? In general, it claims as follows:

(a) He held to a thoroughly dualistic ontology, which saw reality as divided into an earthly, material realm of the flesh, which was (in general terms) "evil" - the visible realm; and a spiritual, heavenly realm, which was (in general terms) "good" - the invisible realm. However, there had been some "admixture" of the two, so that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans". He also believed in a hierarchical set of levels to the heavens and the earth (hence his reference to visiting the "third heaven"). All of this was thoroughly Hellenistic and quite standard fare for the times, shared by many of the mystery religions and so forth. Hence:

"For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another"

"As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly"

"the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal"

Many other verses could be cited - too many in fact to list here. It should be noted that evangelicals will be used to reading verses which refer to the "flesh" in a non-literal manner, meaning "sinful nature" or something like that. Indeed, the NIV often translates the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature". Those who hold to the Hellenistic Paul view would regard this as a gross mis-translation (I think it is one very good reason not to use the NIV, the prime example of its theological bias). When Paul says flesh, he means actual flesh, as is illustrated by verses such as 1 Cor. 15:39 - read it in context.

(b) He saw Jesus Christ as a spiritual counterpart to the earthly Adam, the firstborn of creation, but no as God. He was a "heavenly Adam":

"The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven"

(c) Christ was not truly a human, but only appeared to be such (docetism). Christ was a spiritual counterpart to the human Adam; he was the "heavenly man" as opposed to the "earthly man".

(d) Christ as a historical figure is irrelevant and unimportant:

"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer"

This is why there is very little reference to actual history - to Jesus' life or his teachings - in his theology.

(e) He believed in resurrection into a "spiritual body", not a physical or earthly body. We become transformed from an earthly body (like Adam) into a spiritual body (like Christ); we cross-over from the realm of the earthly to the realm of the heavenly. At first he thought this would happen in a general resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age; but Paul was generally uninterested in historical eschatology and gradually came to the position that spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death.

(f) Salvation occurs by participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit.

(g) The Old Testament was to be interpreted in terms of a deeper meaning, not the plain sense.

"the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"

(h) The Jews, by reading the OT literally, came into bondage to the flesh, and are the earthly Jerusalem. Believers are set free in the spirit by a mystical, non-literal reading of the OT, and are the heavenly Jerusalem. The two covenants are the earthly and the heavenly. The law is bad because it is of the earthly covenant, and brings death.

Anyway, that's something to start from. Perhaps I should stop now and invite comments/objections? Then we can from there.

[Whipartist]

Great thread. Thanks for the detailed and informative post. I agree with a whole lot of what you've laid out but have some comments and contention I'll lay out here.


(c) Christ was not truly a human, but only appeared to be such (docetism). Christ was a spiritual counterpart to the human Adam; he was the "heavenly man" as opposed to the "earthly man".

But Paul calls him "Man." It seems natural to take it literally. I'm not saying Christ doesn't transcend normal man....


(d) Christ as a historical figure is irrelevant and unimportant:

"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer"

This is why there is very little reference to actual history - to Jesus' life or his teachings - in his theology.

This I think is too far. Paul had other objectives than to detail the history of Jesus' life. IMO, his teachings are pretty close to Jesus. Soteriologically, both focused on identifying with Jesus in following Him in His death, in faith or faithfulness.

Off hand, IMO, that verse in 2Cor. means that we have a supernatural understanding of Jesus beyond being a historical figure, into being the Point of Origin for New Creation. Not that Christ was spiritualized by Paul beyond how Jesus viewed Himself. Christ as a historical figure backs Paul up IMO. Jesus was pretty mystically oriented when He spoke about Himself and His powers.


(e) He believed in resurrection into a "spiritual body", not a physical or earthly body. We become transformed from an earthly body (like Adam) into a spiritual body (like Christ); we cross-over from the realm of the earthly to the realm of the heavenly. At first he thought this would happen in a general resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age; but Paul was generally uninterested in historical eschatology and gradually came to the position that spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death.

Yes, not an earthly body, but not physical? I question that. It think it's clear that the spiritual body transcends physicality but it seems to be quite physical.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul's emphasis and triumphal dogmatic assertions about the resurrection at specifically the last trumpet, make me seriously doubt that he ever changed his view to the resurrection occuring right at death..., though I am aware of this tension with Phillipians.

I don't see any lack of interest in a historical eschatology in Paul? Romans 8b for instance shows his triumph in it.


(f) Salvation occurs by participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit.

Amen to that. How do you think Paul envisions that we participate in Christ's death and resurrection?


(g) The Old Testament was to be interpreted in terms of a deeper meaning, not the plain sense.

"the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"

It seems that Judaism offered some wild interpretations of the OT themselves and Paul's hermeneutic was similar if not much more tame than what was common. I cannot defend this, just something I've come across.

Paul did see the letter of the law as a killer, but it was intended to do this and it is "good", so the issue is more complex than a correct method of hermeneutics. The law was a deceitful but good thing, which worked to lead people to look deeper. It worked this way in my life aswell.


(h) The Jews, by reading the OT literally, came into bondage to the flesh, and are the earthly Jerusalem. Believers are set free in the spirit by a mystical, non-literal reading of the OT, and are the heavenly Jerusalem. The two covenants are the earthly and the heavenly. The law is bad because it is of the earthly covenant, and brings death.

I basically agree. But the law is not bad, it is just insufficient. It can't give life. Paul was very faithful to tying up the OT in a neat bow. He didn't just reject it's literal interpretation.

Because Paul's thought resembles Hellenism in some ways, atleast in wording, explanations..., and even some concepts, does this mean that it is not the truth of God, but Paul's own overly wordly opinions, influenced by the worldviews of Greek philosophers? So then we must instead quest for a deeper meaning which has escaped the Greek culture in which the NT was written? I don't agree with that. Actually I see most of the New Testament, including Paul, but not limited to him, in these same,"Hellenistic" or semi-Hellenistic ways. I cannot separate them from New Testament Scriptures without ending up with nothing left afterwards but a bunch of OT quotations.

Scholarship is onto something good because they are starting to see Paul more and more naturally, as he thought and wrote. Yet they must not limit him into being a Christologizer of Greek Philosphy. I seek to be a Biblical thinker myself but most often my explanations, illustrations, etc..., are bathed in my culture... far beyond escape. It would be natural and wise for Paul to use Hellenistic illustrations and thought structures in evangelizing Gentiles. To tie in the positive ideas of the Gentile culture in with His own gospel, which was truly rooted in the OT, and in Christ's words themselves. Paul quotes heavily from the Old Testament and he's thoroughly Jewish. He can best be understood within his Hellenistic Jewish culture, but his viewpoints are not exclusively determined by either.


Anyway, that's something to start from. Perhaps I should stop now and invite comments/objections? Then we can from there.

Thanks again for the great thread.

God bless, Benjamin

[Rupert Pupkin]

But Paul calls him "Man." It seems natural to take it literally. I'm not saying Christ doesn't transcend normal man....

The problem with this argument, is that Paul explicitly contrasts an "earthly man" and a "heavenly man" (1 Cor. 15:47). In both cases he uses the word ANQRWPOS. In short, Paul seems to think that there are two different beings, both of which are "man"; there is a heavenly archetype, and there is an earthly copy. It is this dualism with respect to the term "man", that completely undermines such arguments I think.

This I think is too far. Paul had other objectives than to detail the history of Jesus' life. IMO, his teachings are pretty close to Jesus. Soteriologically, both focused on identifying with Jesus in following Him in His death, in faith or faithfulness.

I disagree. The lack of any reference much to Jesus' life and teachings is crucial. It is a silence that speaks volumes. We know that other, later segments of early Christianity - those that produced the gospels for instance - placed central importance on Jesus' life and teachings. It is implausible to suggest that Paul, if he were in a similar theological position, would not refer more often in his voluminous writings to Jesus' teachings. For instance, why not refer to his ethical teachings when Paul is dealing with ethical matters such as marriage? Why not say, "Just as Jesus taught us about marriage ..., and so ..."? The absence doesn't make sense - unless Paul himself was not interested, for whatever reason, in Jesus' earthly life.

And I think that a huge gulf seperates Pauline Christianity from the synoptic gospels. They are completely different. Mark is adoptionist; Matthew is proto-orthodox, and Luke-Acts are ecumenical. The gospel of John represents a "third stream" in early Christian thought, which has some affinity with Paul, but also proto-orthodoxy.

I think we should consider the "political" aspects of all this. Paul, remember, claimed apostolic authority, even sufficient to challenge Peter, but he had never actually met Jesus. He had only had visions of the risen Christ. This might put him at a severe disadvantage with respect to apostles like Peter who had actually been with Jesus. In the minds of ordinary people, wouldn't someone who had spent three years with Jesus be superior to someone who had never met him? In order to combat this "inferiority complex", if you like, it would be natural for Paul to emphasize the spiritual reality of Christ that he had experienced in visions, and downplay the importance of the historical Christ. It's like he is saying, "well, Peter might have known Jesus historically, but that knowledge is irrelevant and unimportant; I have the "real deal", the secret, hidden knowledge of the heavenly Christ".

Off hand, IMO, that verse in 2Cor. means that we have a supernatural understanding of Jesus beyond being a historical figure, into being the Point of Origin for New Creation. Not that Christ was spiritualized by Paul beyond how Jesus viewed Himself. Christ as a historical figure backs Paul up IMO. Jesus was pretty mystically oriented when He spoke about Himself and His powers.

This gets to the heart of the matter - the meaning of "according to the flesh" (KATA SARKA). How much hangs upon this! I would argue that this phrase means "according to visible appearances", or "from the perspective of the material realm". In this case, 2 Cor. 5:16 is definitely saying that we should not know Christ as he appeared in history, as he seemed to be in the material realm. And that fits well with Paul's lack of interest in Jesus as a historical figure. It also fits well with what he is saying about believers - we ought not to look on them as they appear to us, but as they "really are" in the invisible realm, where "all things are made new" (see the context).

Yes, not an earthly body, but not physical? I question that. It think it's clear that the spiritual body transcends physicality but it seems to be quite physical.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul's emphasis and triumphal dogmatic assertions about the resurrection at specifically the last trumpet, make me seriously doubt that he ever changed his view to the resurrection occuring right at death..., though I am aware of this tension with Phillipians.

I think this is one of the most implausible aspects of the orthodox reading of Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15, he sharply distinguishes the earthly and the spiritual, and explicitly states that the resurrection body we will receive is not the body we presently have (verse 37), and explains this by highlighting the different kinds of bodies - some of flesh, some of heaven. He explicitly states:

"Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

This seems to me pretty conclusive. Paul does not believe that the resurrection body is physical.

As for a development in his eschatology, this is a pretty common scholarly view, and is mainly based on a comparison of his teaching in 2 Corinthians (especially chapter 5) with his earlier teaching. But it is a side issue; it is interesting, as it shows a slight progression in a gnostic direction if true, but it is not essential to the Hellenistic reading.

I don't see any lack of interest in a historical eschatology in Paul? Romans 8b for instance shows his triumph in it.

But what you will never find, anywhere, in Paul, is any description of end-times historical events, of the kind you find elsewhere in great detail in the New Testament (e.g. rise of antichrist, abomination of desolation and temple destruction, great tribulation). This is what I mean by a lack of interest in historical eschatology. There is just the resurrection of the righteous, that is it.

Amen to that. How do you think Paul envisions that we participate in Christ's death and resurrection?

By being transformed from earthly bodies into spiritual bodies, from earthly men into heavenly men, by escaping the material realm.

Paul did see the letter of the law as a killer, but it was intended to do this and it is "good", so the issue is more complex than a correct method of hermeneutics. The law was a deceitful but good thing, which worked to lead people to look deeper. It worked this way in my life aswell.

This is an important point. Although he was a forerunner of gnosticism, it is not true to call Paul a gnostic. Perhaps we could call him a proto-gnostic. In any case, he did not believe that the material realm was created by an inferior deity, and he did not believe that the OT was inspired by an inferior deity. Everything was created by the one, true, God.

What are we to make of the evil, material realm, then? I think Romans 9 provides us with help:

"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?"

Paul is here reflecting proto-neoplatonism. Indeed, it is the very fact that Paul has assumed underlying concepts (perhaps via Philo) that came to be expressed most clearly in 3rd-century neoplatonism, that Augustine, who was quite explicitly a neoplatonist, finds so much in common with Paul. Paul believed that God, in order to fully "realize his potential" so to speak, had to create a PLHRWMA or fulness of being. This means that he is like a mad artist, who wants to include absolutely everything in his paintings. Paul believes in "the great chain of being". This necessitates that God create "bad" things as well as "good" things, in order that the fulness of being might be realized. The material realm is created by God for destruction, the spiritual realm for glory. The act of creation is seen somewhat in terms of emanation, rather than creatio ex nihilo, although Paul's view is kind of a middle ground on this point I think.

Because Paul's thought resembles Hellenism in some ways, atleast in wording, explanations..., and even some concepts, does this mean that it is not the truth of God, but Paul's own overly wordly opinions, influenced by the worldviews of Greek philosophers? So then we must instead quest for a deeper meaning which has escaped the Greek culture in which the NT was written? I don't agree with that. Actually I see most of the New Testament, including Paul, but not limited to him, in these same,"Hellenistic" or semi-Hellenistic ways. I cannot separate them from New Testament Scriptures without ending up with nothing left afterwards but a bunch of OT quotations.

I do see scripture as the truth of God, but I just think that God spoke through the writers of scripture in ways that they did not understand, imbuing their words with a deeper meaning that requires a different hermeneutic to expose. So I do see all of Paul's writings as theologically valuable, but only when read in a more "esoteric" manner. And like you, I don't see any problem with Greek influence; I think much in Greek philosophy was good and God could incorporate it into his teaching.

Thank you for your comments!

[rogue06]

Excellent OP, this should make for an interesting thread. I have just one nit to pick though...
One constraint: I would request that the discussion focus only upon the universally accepted Pauline canon, namely, these 7 books: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galations, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians.

You've listed six titles. I think I know which other one you wish to include but for clarification's sake you may want to mention it (I don't want to assume).

[Rupert Pupkin]

You've listed six titles. I think I know which other one you wish to include but for clarification's sake you may want to mention it (I don't want to assume).

Thanks for pointing that out, rogue6! The additional book, of course, is Philemon. It's a little book and doesn't shed much light on these matters, but it should be in there, of course!

[Whipartist]

Thanks for your response and clarification. I probably want to get into some other aspects later when I have more time, but with the time I have now I'm mainly interested in the below point.

By being transformed from earthly bodies into spiritual bodies, from earthly men into heavenly men, by escaping the material realm.

I understand what you're saying but I'm saying, pragmatically, practically, how is it that we participate in Christ? What do we have to do? Is this union present through the Holy Spirit? Does it involve imitation, baptism? Or is it a reference entirely to a future eschatological destination? In Romans 6, Paul ties it in with obedience. So how does this relate?

Also, is New Creation a present reality in a Christian's life or is it simply a destiny which is surely coming?

In not recognizing Christians according to the flesh, is Paul saying, similar to the gnostics, and John MacArthur's interpretation of 1Jn. 3:9, that we ignoring the real sinfulness of their lives in favor of some inner perfection we have faith in?

[Rupert Pupkin]

I understand what you're saying but I'm saying, pragmatically, practically, how is it that we participate in Christ? What do we have to do? Is this union present through the Holy Spirit? Does it involve imitation, baptism? Or is it a reference entirely to a future eschatological destination? In Romans 6, Paul ties it in with obedience. So how does this relate?

In my opinion, Paul envisages the believer as being in a "half-way state" between the material and the spiritual realms. That is why the spirit wars against the flesh in their lives. The spirit is alive, but the flesh is not yet dead. At the resurrection we cast off the flesh forever. Ethical imitation of Christ's life is important because it, so to speak, "strengthens" the spirit, whereas if one does evil, it "strengthens" the flesh. Paul thinks it is possible to lose one's salvation, so it is important to continue to nourish the spirit and starve the flesh.

Also, is New Creation a present reality in a Christian's life or is it simply a destiny which is surely coming?

Yes, it is a reality; the spirit has been made alive. But, unfortunately, the flesh is not yet dead. So we continue in a half-way state.

In not recognizing Christians according to the flesh, is Paul saying, similar to the gnostics, and John MacArthur's interpretation of 1Jn. 3:9, that we ignoring the real sinfulness of their lives in favor of some inner perfection we have faith in?

No, I don't think so. I think Paul is saying that our minds constitute a battleground between the "good" spirit, which we receive when we believe, and the "evil" flesh, which we inherit from Adam. Our duty is to choose the spirit over the flesh. In doing so we put the flesh to death, and prepare ourselves for the final purification when the flesh will be eliminated altogether.

[Bernie]

For this thread, I want to concentrate not on theology, but on the historical question of what Paul actually thought, what he was saying in his historical context. How we might integrate that into broader theological concerns, if we should choose to do so, is not something I want to deal with here.

I doubt it’s possible to separate what Paul “actually thought” from a theological context. His writings are primarily theological. Because I see this, I may not be up for this intellectually…i.e., not sure what you’re looking for since I can see no way to separate his historical thinking from the theological. If you don’t respond, I’ll know I’ve crossed the line you’ve drawn…

(a) He held to a thoroughly dualistic ontology, which saw reality as divided into an earthly, material realm of the flesh, which was (in general terms) "evil" - the visible realm; and a spiritual, heavenly realm, which was (in general terms) "good" - the invisible realm. However, there had been some "admixture" of the two, so that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans".

It should be noted that evangelicals will be used to reading verses which refer to the "flesh" in a non-literal manner, meaning "sinful nature" or something like that. Indeed, the NIV often translates the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature". Those who hold to the Hellenistic Paul view would regard this as a gross mis-translation

Here lies the essence of why I read Paul differently than either the Hellenistic or traditional ways. I agree that Paul was a dualist. Many—maybe most—Christians hold to some form of dualism in their belief system usually without carrying this distinction far enough into their theology to tie enough ends together to avoid the pitfalls common to popular thinking. When you first state that Paul was an ontological dualist, then go on to try to limit his understanding to a more literal meaning, you seem to me to be violating the principles ontological dualism imposes on any theological thinking and reading.

My point is, dualism in being proceeds naturally to dualism in the ethereal realm, if one is truly a dualist. The true dualist IMHO necessarily reads this structure into his or her religious thinking. Just as we accept without reservation (either knowingly or ignorantly) that thing and attribute are simultaneous existents in material reality, seems to me the committed dualist should accept not merely the standard theological dualisms (good/evil, spirit/matter), but a simultaneous ontological/theological dualism. They exist and interact concurrently.

Hence, to limit Paul to a primarily literal thinking (that flesh = matter) is to necessarily miss what he’s trying to say.

Examples:

“in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace” (Rom 8:4-6 [NASB])

To walk according to the flesh necessarily has simultaneous literal and spiritual (esoteric; corresponding) meaning. To pursue immaterial evil leads to sin-in-act, in time and space. They occur together, as I think Paul well understood. To 'walk' after immaterial good (spirit) leads to the willful practice of constraint which leads to a materially “righteous” stance in time and space. [righteous here means only non-participation with evil, not “righteous” in its perfect sense as Christ Himself is]

To suggest that Paul is speaking only or even primarily in a literal sense in v.6 only corroborates this distinction, as one’s “mindset”—an immaterial function—precedes, then combines with, act. To unite with contamination in the immaterial mind requires more than the material object of desire, as Jesus noted in Mark 7:21-23.

Rom 8:9: “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” …again seems to verify this. To unite with the indwelling Spirit of God, an ethereal union, produces like fruit in time and space. The converse would naturally be true with indwelling evil.

When Paul noted that we must die if we live according to the flesh in Rom 8:13, this is hard to understand unless one embraces not simply individual dualisms, but their admixture. I.e., to unite with evil in immaterial reality produces death in spirit as well as body, and the merger with Spirit produces life. That the body dies as a feature of our lifelong union with various evils is natural outcome of the union, as Paul noted in Gal 5:16-17: “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” Material flesh has no “desire”. Desire is a component of the immaterial realm. The object of desire is fixed on some point in time and space, but the desire for it lies elsewhere, somewhere in immateriality. It seems to me that your dividing line for Paul’s thought, “….that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans".” …doesn’t go far enough to uncover what Paul’s really saying. We continually try to divide Scripture, incl. Paul, into these ‘either/or” categories when his thinking is trying to convey all simultaneously, and so for all Scripture.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I doubt it’s possible to separate what Paul “actually thought” from a theological context. His writings are primarily theological. Because I see this, I may not be up for this intellectually…i.e., not sure what you’re looking for since I can see no way to separate his historical thinking from the theological. If you don’t respond, I’ll know I’ve crossed the line you’ve drawn…

No problem Bernie! I know that Paul is doing theology, it's just that I want to separate Paul's theology from ours. In other words, I want to understand Paul's theology in its historical context, without my own theology being bound by what he thought.

With respect to your other comments:

Firstly, I think you are falling into a bit of a trap that evangelicals often do. That is, they say, hey, the word "flesh" here seems to be used as meaning a mindset, or a propensity to sin, or whatever. And they are quite correct. But they then make the faulty judgement, that if it is used in this way, then it cannot also and at the same time be intended literally. That is, I think Paul thinks that our sinful propensity, and sinful mindsets, and so on, arise from our flesh, in the literal sense. We could think of this like this. Paul thinks that our "urges" towards sin, like adultery, murder, gluttony, and so forth, arise from our material nature, from our literal flesh. Of course they then are manifested in the mind, which is the battleground between flesh and spirit. So I find these comments of yours unconvincing.

In other words, in my view, when Paul talks about "walking according to the flesh", he means living in a manner that gives in to and yields to the literal flesh, that succumbs to the desires which originate in the flesh. Similarly, walking according to the spirit means to give in to, and yield to, the motivations that arise from the spirit. But this whole contrast is very much rooted in an ontological dualism between the literal flesh and spirit. In one sense, you are right: there is an admixture of the two sets of desires (fleshly and spiritual), but in my view that admixture is located in the mind. That is, when Paul speaks of "mind", he speaks of the "middle realm" of admixture in which the flesh dukes it out with the spirit. Note the importance of "mind" in this respect in the scriptures you cited. The mind parallels the "middle realm" of admixture in the cosmos.

Secondly, I think that it is wrong to say that if someone is dualistic, then they must be rigourously dualistic through all the various dimensions of dualism (theological, cosmic, cosmological, anthropological, eschatological, and so forth). It is true that dualistic thinking, which Paul certainly has, tends to manifest repeatedly in different domains - as it does in Paul. But that does not mean that someone will be dualistic in every respect, and that might be either because they haven't thought things through enough, or it might be for good reasons, like that it would be logically incoherent. Not all dualisms are logically compatible with each other. Indeed, adhering to some dualisms might preclude other kinds of dualism. Let me give a simple example. Virtually all the anthropological monists I have encountered, have been strongly Reformed in their theology (i.e. holding to a strong theological dualism). The reason for this, I think, it that if one abandons theological dualism in its strong form, thus allowing for some kind of theosis, then one is forced, of logical necessity, to go to a dualistic anthropology. So sometimes we have to trade off one kind of dualism for another.

This is why both orthodoxy and gnosticism, represent developments, and not faithful reproductions, of Paul's thinking. They simply start with his thought, and then try to draw lines from it at orthogonal angles to each other.

Your comments are excellent, though, and I think the issue of what separates the Hellenistic reading of Paul from the general evangelical one.

[Whipartist]

In my opinion, Paul envisages the believer as being in a "half-way state" between the material and the spiritual realms. That is why the spirit wars against the flesh in their lives. The spirit is alive, but the flesh is not yet dead. At the resurrection we cast off the flesh forever. Ethical imitation of Christ's life is important because it, so to speak, "strengthens" the spirit, whereas if one does evil, it "strengthens" the flesh. Paul thinks it is possible to lose one's salvation, so it is important to continue to nourish the spirit and starve the flesh.

Yes, it is a reality; the spirit has been made alive. But, unfortunately, the flesh is not yet dead. So we continue in a half-way state.

No, I don't think so. I think Paul is saying that our minds constitute a battleground between the "good" spirit, which we receive when we believe, and the "evil" flesh, which we inherit from Adam. Our duty is to choose the spirit over the flesh. In doing so we put the flesh to death, and prepare ourselves for the final purification when the flesh will be eliminated altogether.

I basically agree with that. Thanks for the clarification.

It's ironic that you you cut across the grain by seeing Paul as being a proto-gnostic, yet practically, less gnostic than many evangelicals. What I mean is that evangelicals often view our spirit's as being perfected despite the fact that our flesh is defiled by sin. And they seem to think that sort of dualistic thinking is an ok thing. They split the definition of righteousness up into compartments. "Positionally righteous but not practically righteous." That's nonsense talk asfar as I'm concerned.

I'm reading over some of your posts again and trying to understand how you think Paul would view original sin? God creating a material order which He called "good" but that it went astray through...? Is the material order good? Or did it used to be good? What made it bad?

Another question I have for you is, what theological position(s) do you see the "quasi-Pauline" epistles as representing? And do you view them as Scripture and authoritative? And also, I'm trying to understand, is your own position more allied with orthodoxy or Paul, since you see them as somewhat separate? Where was Paul wrong?

[Tercel]

Rupert,
I have seen people who hold Paul was hellenistic interpret his hellenism as meaning he believed things quite different from some of the things listed in the original post. So I'm not sure I see an advantage in discussing whether Paul was "hellenistic" or "Jewish" - if people can disagree over what these categories mean in terms of exegeting Paul, then is there a point in making such a distinction in the first place? My preferred approach would be to learn as much as possible about both the hellenism and Judaism of Paul's time and then, when reading his letters, decide on a case-by-case basis which concepts from his time he was referring to. It might well turn out that he always uses hellenic concepts or always Judean concepts (though I would think chances are surely good that he would make use of some of each), but that is not something that should be decided before we examine the evidence.

(a) He held to a thoroughly dualistic ontology, which saw reality as divided into an earthly, material realm of the flesh, which was (in general terms) "evil" - the visible realm; and a spiritual, heavenly realm, which was (in general terms) "good" - the invisible realm. However, there had been some "admixture" of the two, so that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans". He also believed in a hierarchical set of levels to the heavens and the earth (hence his reference to visiting the "third heaven"). All of this was thoroughly Hellenistic and quite standard fare for the times, shared by many of the mystery religions and so forth. Hence:

"For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another"

"As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly"

"the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal"

Many other verses could be cited - too many in fact to list here. It should be noted that evangelicals will be used to reading verses which refer to the "flesh" in a non-literal manner, meaning "sinful nature" or something like that. Indeed, the NIV often translates the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature". Those who hold to the Hellenistic Paul view would regard this as a gross mis-translation (I think it is one very good reason not to use the NIV, the prime example of its theological bias).I totally agree about not using the NIV because of it's "sinful nature" mistranslation. But I totally disagree with you about what the Spirit/Flesh language means.I think Paul is making use of concepts that were common in Greek philosophy and ethics. (and Stowers "Rereading Romans" who holds to a very Greek view of Paul agrees with me strongly on this one)

Greek philosophers when they talked about self-control used a conceptual model of the human mind divided into parts which each represented one type of desire - normally one part for bodily desires (literally "desires of the flesh") and one for the desire for abstract goods, and optionally a third logical / controlling part which choose between the other two. This concept is used by Plato, was regularly used by the Stoics, and was popularized by the Emperor Augustus.

Since Paul uses the identical Greek phrase "desires of the flesh" to Plato, and contrasts it with a spirit that desires abstract goods, I don't have any doubt that he is intending to echo standard Greek ethical philosophy and is talking about self-control. Hence Paul's flesh and spirit represent two parts of the mind with different desires, one desires bodily pleasures and if this one is allowed to be in control it will naturally lead to sin, and the other desires abstract goods and if it is placed in control will naturally lead to holiness. That's why the adjective "sinful" is used occasionally for "the flesh" and why the adjective "holy" is used occasionally for "the spirit".

So there you go - I agree Paul is being "Greek" in this instance, but my view of how he is using Greek concepts seems antithetical to your reading. Hence I'm not convinced that to say Paul is Hellenistic is particularly helpful.

[Bernie]

Hi RP,

Firstly, I think you are falling into a bit of a trap that evangelicals often do. That is, they say, hey, the word "flesh" here seems to be used as meaning a mindset, or a propensity to sin, or whatever. And they are quite correct. But they then make the faulty judgement, that if it is used in this way, then it cannot also and at the same time be intended literally.
Okay, but I must not have conveyed what I felt very well; one of my main points is that the strength of thinking in a dualistic sense should be specifically to accept that the "flesh" in Paul's thinking speaks at the same time to both material and spiritual spheres. Same with Peter's and Jesus' use of the phrase. The literal and spiritual are concurrently valid in somewhat the same way "green" and "blade of grass" exist as one. I agree that it's faulty to believe that flesh can't be both literal and figurative at the same time.

I think Paul thinks that our sinful propensity, and sinful mindsets, and so on, arise from our flesh, in the literal sense. We could think of this like this. Paul thinks that our "urges" towards sin, like adultery, murder, gluttony, and so forth, arise from our material nature, from our literal flesh. Of course they then are manifested in the mind, which is the battleground between flesh and spirit. So I find these comments of yours unconvincing.
First, I pointed out in my previous post Mark 7:21-23, where Jesus seems to dismiss the idea of sin arising from our material nature: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." Few would argue that "heart" in the sense Jesus means it refers to the fleshly organ which pumps blood.

Second, consider 2Cor 7:1 "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Being a Jew and a dualist, I think Paul knew well that temple sacrifice was a pattern or type corresponding to a spiritual reality. That he uses the idea of cleansing for both spirit and flesh in this knowing seems to dismiss the notion that he would suppose the propensity to sin comes from the literal flesh. Cleansing "from all defilement" in this sense just doesn't appear to support this, else the numerous literal washings of the Mosaic Law would have a real effect, and it seems pretty obvious that Paul didn't believe this.

Third, in Gal 4:29 the idea that Paul thought of flesh principally in a lteral sense doesn't seem to make sense to me in his comparison of the dual covenant seen in Issac and Jacob: But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. That Paul works freely between literal and ethereal suggests to me that like Peter and Jesus, he used the contradistinction "flesh and spirit" to establish a simultaneous significance in words his audience would understand. Correspondence, or the transition of context from one mode to another seems the meat of figurative language.

I just don't see a Gnostic disposition in Paul.

In other words, in my view, when Paul talks about "walking according to the flesh", he means living in a manner that gives in to and yields to the literal flesh, that succumbs to the desires which originate in the flesh. Similarly, walking according to the spirit means to give in to, and yield to, the motivations that arise from the spirit. But this whole contrast is very much rooted in an ontological dualism between the literal flesh and spirit. In one sense, you are right: there is an admixture of the two sets of desires (fleshly and spiritual), but in my view that admixture is located in the mind. That is, when Paul speaks of "mind", he speaks of the "middle realm" of admixture in which the flesh dukes it out with the spirit. Note the importance of "mind" in this respect in the scriptures you cited. The mind parallels the "middle realm" of admixture in the cosmos.

Secondly, I think that it is wrong to say that if someone is dualistic, then they must be rigourously dualistic through all the various dimensions of dualism (theological, cosmic, cosmological, anthropological, eschatological, and so forth). It is true that dualistic thinking, which Paul certainly has, tends to manifest repeatedly in different domains - as it does in Paul. But that does not mean that someone will be dualistic in every respect, and that might be either because they haven't thought things through enough, or it might be for good reasons, like that it would be logically incoherent. Not all dualisms are logically compatible with each other. Indeed, adhering to some dualisms might preclude other kinds of dualism. Let me give a simple example. Virtually all the anthropological monists I have encountered, have been strongly Reformed in their theology (i.e. holding to a strong theological dualism). The reason for this, I think, it that if one abandons theological dualism in its strong form, thus allowing for some kind of theosis, then one is forced, of logical necessity, to go to a dualistic anthropology. So sometimes we have to trade off one kind of dualism for another.
I'm not saying one "must be rigorously dualistic", only that I don't think we can properly connect the dots unless we apply them equally and simultaneously. To me, Paul makes perfect sense, specifically because he seems to understand and 'think dualistically'. In fact, in the first of the two paragraphs in the quote above, it seems to me that you separate 'evil' from the 'good/evil' dualism in regard to spirit and place it in the flesh, with mind as the battleground. This seems to me to force Paul into a position I don't see him taking. That mind is a battleground, no one would deny. And it's popular to separate flesh and spirit; many in Christianity today do, but to do so one necessarily assigns a prescriptive nature to matter, an untenable position, and raises a number of other questions obviously beyond the scope of this thread.

Great thread, RP. Your stance is well thought out, even if we don't see exactly eye to eye.

[Whipartist]

I've done some brief study of Paul's usage in 2Cor. of "according to the flesh" over the last few days. From this I cannot see the justification for assuming that He's intent on saying that Jesus' actual historical life is irrelevant. The phrase "according to the flesh" is used 5 times in 2Cor. and in context, Paul was defending himself agaist those who viewed him as if he walked according to the flesh. Inotherwords, those who judged by outward appearance and not by actual spiritual power. Who looked at qualifications and accomplishments, and not at fruit. Many judged Jesus in the same way, and Paul was noting that rather than explaining away His historical existence altogether. He was using our transformed perception of Christ to back up the idea that we should not judge Paul or anyone else by fleshly achievements either.

I think it's an overly presumptious and simplistic assumptions that scholars operate under, when they delve into Paul's supposed political feelings about not being one of the original disciples, or other such subjects, which they assume came to shape his theology so dramatically. In 1Cor. 7 he appeals to Jesus' earthly teaching directly. And throughout most of the NT, in many authors, there is not more than a hint of actual appeal to Jesus' real life teachings as authoritative to back up what they are trying to say. I don't find any less in Paul than others. Infact in the last year, I've seen striking similarites between Paul and many things Jesus teaches in all the gospel accounts. I don't think Paul's silence speaks such volumes. He's just playing his part in a larger picture, and not going beyond his expertise.

I'd say more but I have to get ready for work, Ben

[Rupert Pupkin]

I'm reading over some of your posts again and trying to understand how you think Paul would view original sin? God creating a material order which He called "good" but that it went astray through...? Is the material order good? Or did it used to be good? What made it bad?

I'm not sure how thoroughly Paul had thought through all these questions; although he was obviously an extremely brilliant mind, it was not a philosopher's mind, I don't think. But the kind of answer that you would get from the sort of middle Platonism that I think has filtered down to him one way or another, is that the material order is evil, but that evil is not an actual entity in itself, but just a privation or absence of the good. Think of it like this. God has a whole lot of possible things he can make, combining various possibilities in various ways. Some possibilities involve making things that lack goodness, and hence are evil. But God makes them, because he is interested in realizing the fulness of all potential being. He makes these wicked for destruction, and the good for glory. The material world lacks goodness and is evil, as does the flesh.

Another question I have for you is, what theological position(s) do you see the "quasi-Pauline" epistles as representing? And do you view them as Scripture and authoritative? And also, I'm trying to understand, is your own position more allied with orthodoxy or Paul, since you see them as somewhat separate? Where was Paul wrong?

OK. In brief: Colossians and Ephesians (which drew on Colossians) increasingly develop a more "realized eschatology" of resurrection than Paul. 2 Thessalonians tries to move Paul in a direction that is more in line with the historical eschatology of Palestinian Christianity (proto-orthodoxy). The Pastoral epistles are written later when church structure has become more organized and hierarchical, and are an attempt to justify that structure by putting Paul's stamp of approval, so to speak, on it.

Disclaimer: The following is merely speculation, since I think the evidence is too weak for solid historical reconstruction. Having said that:

I believe orthodoxy only emerged gradually, and was not present in the 1st- or 2nd-centuries. I think it only makes sense to speak of proto-orthodoxy (that is, people who had ideas that are recognizably similar to later orthodox ones in crucial respects) during this time. But I do not think that Paul was aligned with proto-orthodoxy, which was based, in my opinion, in Palestine. Paul was the leader of his own, unique form of Christianity. He remained on reasonable terms with the proto-orthodox, and was able to get away with teaching a lot of stuff which they would not have approved of, because he was writing to Gentiles in Greek. I think he was a diplomat, and when he went to Palestine and met with proto-orthodox leaders, he presented his theology in ways which made it seem less radical. I think 1 Corinthians 15 is a classic example of this; he starts out seeming to be perfectly in line with proto-orthodoxy in its Jewish belief in a physical resurrection, but then he goes on to completely redirect things as a spiritual resurrection, more in line with Greek thinking. I think his ability to synthesize Greek thought into Christianity was a major factor in his missionary success. And I think the fact that he was later adopted and championed by proto-orthodoxy, is due to his spectacular missionary success. To have disowned Paul, would have been to split the Christian world in two in such a way as to make the proto-orthodox faction a small minority. So instead, they took him on board and "tamed" his theology to bring it more in line with theirs, and gradually sought to bring Pauline communities into line. And I think that this effort was what probably, in large part, led to the development of gnosticism as a distinct community of faith (i.e. the Paulinist "radicals" who were unwilling to compromise, and took things even further, were alienated from the proto-orthodox).

Yes, I view all of scripture as authoritative - but I think that God spoke through the human author in a way that they did not understand, imbuing the text with a deeper meaning that can only be seen by the eyes of faith, reading the text in a Christocentric, canonical manner. So I can address the question of Paul's beliefs, separately from the question of the divinely intended significance of these texts.

I have seen people who hold Paul was hellenistic interpret his hellenism as meaning he believed things quite different from some of the things listed in the original post. So I'm not sure I see an advantage in discussing whether Paul was "hellenistic" or "Jewish" - if people can disagree over what these categories mean in terms of exegeting Paul, then is there a point in making such a distinction in the first place? My preferred approach would be to learn as much as possible about both the hellenism and Judaism of Paul's time and then, when reading his letters, decide on a case-by-case basis which concepts from his time he was referring to. It might well turn out that he always uses hellenic concepts or always Judean concepts (though I would think chances are surely good that he would make use of some of each), but that is not something that should be decided before we examine the evidence.

Yes, I think this is a reflection of the wonderful diversity of Hellenistic thought. But I still think there are certain definite tendencies - such as an ontological dualism of matter (evil) versus spirit (good) that is characteristically Hellenistic. I agree that we must determine what Paul thought from the text, but I also think it is crucial to bring to bear the conceptual background from the historical context. Just as we misunderstand Heidegger if we do not read Husserl, so we misread Paul if we do not understand the Hellenic background of his work. Personally, I do not see very much that is distinctively Jewish about his thinking. He is a Hellenistic interpreter of the Old Testament, I think, much as Bultmann was an existentialist interpreter of the New Testament.

But I totally disagree with you about what the Spirit/Flesh language means.I think Paul is making use of concepts that were common in Greek philosophy and ethics. (and Stowers "Rereading Romans" who holds to a very Greek view of Paul agrees with me strongly on this one)

There are a number of issues here, I think. The first is whether Paul was flying in such exalted company, or whether he was more influenced by ordinary Hellenic religious ideas. The second is the interpretation of Plato; it is true that he thought in terms of a rational, spirited and appetitive components of the psyche, but I am not sure that these operate in a vacuum disconnected from his general metaphysics. Also Plato tends to have the notion of a "correspondence" between the macrocosm and the microcosm, so the rational part of the soul corresponds to the philosopher-kings in the state and the realm of the forms in metaphysics, and the appetitive part of the soul to the masses in the state and the material world of flux in metaphysics. The third is exegetical. Consider 1 Cor. 15. Paul is discussing the contrast between the "earthly" body and the "spiritual" body. He then says:

But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

Now I would suggest that in the passage above, the word flesh must mean the literal, material flesh. It cannot mean anything to do with ethics because birds, fish and so forth are not ethical creatures. I would suggest, indeed, that Paul is here making an explicit definition of what he means by flesh, in the very context of the question of human anthropology. He then goes on to say that in the resurrection we will not have flesh - in this literal sense - because flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. Draw your own conclusions, but I think it is pretty clear that Paul thinks of the literal, physical flesh as the source of evil desires and unethical behaviour.

Okay, but I must not have conveyed what I felt very well; one of my main points is that the strength of thinking in a dualistic sense should be specifically to accept that the "flesh" in Paul's thinking speaks at the same time to both material and spiritual spheres. Same with Peter's and Jesus' use of the phrase. The literal and spiritual are concurrently valid in somewhat the same way "green" and "blade of grass" exist as one. I agree that it's faulty to believe that flesh can't be both literal and figurative at the same time.

I disagree. The flesh never, ever has reference to the spiritual in Paul. It is always contrasted with it. The flesh is earthly and of the lower sphere, as the quote above shows; it is at war with the spirit, as numerous quotes show. I challenge you to cite any verse in Paul in which the flesh and spirit are considered as one. The realm of admixture in Paul is the mind, in which the two antithetical, totally mutually exclusive forces of flesh and spirit go to war.

Regarding Mark 7:21-23, I don't think it is relevant because the author of Mark comes from an entirely different Christian community and theological perspective to Paul, with very little overlap between them.

Re 2 Cor. 7:1, the distinction is maintained. In light of Paul's other statements, I think that we can say that the flesh is defiled by being autonomous, whereas the spirit is defiled by being made subject to the flesh. Similarly, the spirit is cleansed by being autonomous, whereas the flesh is cleansed by being made subject to the spirit.

As for Gal. 4:29, I completely disagree with you. The literal meaning certainly is intended. The Jews are children of Abraham according to the flesh - that is, in terms of natural procreation and physical birth. But the children of the promise, believers, and children of Abraham according to the spirit, the higher realm. This fits in absolutely perfectly with my view and is additional evidence to support it.

So, I would say I see an extremely strong gnostic disposition in Paul.

That mind is a battleground, no one would deny. And it's popular to separate flesh and spirit; many in Christianity today do, but to do so one necessarily assigns a prescriptive nature to matter, an untenable position, and raises a number of other questions obviously beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't get your comments about "a prescriptive role to nature". All I am saying is that Paul thinks that the material, fleshly nature is the source of sinful desires. That seems to me inherently plausible, at least for many sins, such as adultery or gluttony! Think of a nicotine addict's craving for cigarettes. Wouldn't we all say that had a biological origin? And Paul separates flesh and spirit absolutely, much more so than any orthodox Christians today I know of!

I've done some brief study of Paul's usage in 2Cor. of "according to the flesh" over the last few days. From this I cannot see the justification for assuming that He's intent on saying that Jesus' actual historical life is irrelevant. The phrase "according to the flesh" is used 5 times in 2Cor. and in context, Paul was defending himself agaist those who viewed him as if he walked according to the flesh. Inotherwords, those who judged by outward appearance and not by actual spiritual power. Who looked at qualifications and accomplishments, and not at fruit. Many judged Jesus in the same way, and Paul was noting that rather than explaining away His historical existence altogether. He was using our transformed perception of Christ to back up the idea that we should not judge Paul or anyone else by fleshly achievements either.

I think that the meaning of kata sarka is a huge bone of contention and that much hangs on what you think about this. I'll comment on every instance in 2 Cor:

1:17 - Here I think Paul is referring to making resolutions on the manner of the material world. The concept that the material world is a world of flux and change and instability, while the spiritual world is one of stasis and permanence, I think underlies his statements here. Paul's word is stable and sure because it is a heavenly, spiritual world, not a fleshly, material world.

5:16 - already noted.

10:2 & 10:3 - Here the reference is to walking according to the flesh, which in this case means to be motivated by fleshly desires for gain etc. Note that he says that we walk in the flesh, but do not war according to the flesh - we inhabit the physical realm, but our pattern of behaviour is derived from the spiritual. That the same dualism in view here is clear, I think, if you read on to verse 4, in which the weapons of our warfare, divine and spiritual, are contrasted with literal, physical weapons.

11:18 - This is one of the clearest examples that supports precisely my contention. Here Paul speaks of "boasting according to the flesh", and then provides us with an example of exactly what this entails - giving an account of his historical circumstances and what he has been through in this life. I would take this as strong confirmation of my claims about the meaning of the phrase in 5:16.

I think it's an overly presumptious and simplistic assumptions that scholars operate under, when they delve into Paul's supposed political feelings about not being one of the original disciples, or other such subjects, which they assume came to shape his theology so dramatically. In 1Cor. 7 he appeals to Jesus' earthly teaching directly. And throughout most of the NT, in many authors, there is not more than a hint of actual appeal to Jesus' real life teachings as authoritative to back up what they are trying to say. I don't find any less in Paul than others. Infact in the last year, I've seen striking similarites between Paul and many things Jesus teaches in all the gospel accounts. I don't think Paul's silence speaks such volumes. He's just playing his part in a larger picture, and not going beyond his expertise.

Actually, it is quite contentious whether 1 Cor. 7 is an appeal to Jesus' earthly teaching. It seems much more likely, I think, that this is a revelation that Paul has received from the resurrected Christ. Certainly, there is no record of the teaching that Paul gives here attributed to Jesus in any of the gospels.

As for the rest, I think you are tending to read Paul through the filter of Christian habit. Try to find actual examples in the text of allusions to Jesus' teaching. They are virtually non-existent. One of the few clear examples is 1 Cor. 11:23-25, but then you get into further problems about the origin of this tradition; and even if it is from Jesus, this is the only place in all of Paul's writings where he refers to the eucharist. Contrast that with baptism, which he mentions willy-nilly all the time.

Again, I think the silence does say an enormous amount, particularly given Paul's proximity to the events (remember, he is writing before any of the gospels existed), but I guess we'll probably just end up disagreeing about that.

Also, I think it is somewhat naive not to realize that there were political struggles within 1st-century Christianity. They've been there in every other century, why not then? Part of the problem is the illusion that 1st-century Christianity was this utopian fantastic time of harmony, and things just fell apart after then.

Wow, Ben, you have a job! What are you doing on Tweb, then?

Thanks for your comments, everyone!

[Whipartist]

I think that the meaning of kata sarka is a huge bone of contention and that much hangs on what you think about this. I'll comment on every instance in 2 Cor:

1:17 - Here I think Paul is referring to making resolutions on the manner of the material world. The concept that the material world is a world of flux and change and instability, while the spiritual world is one of stasis and permanence, I think underlies his statements here. Paul's word is stable and sure because it is a heavenly, spiritual world, not a fleshly, material world.

5:16 - already noted.

10:2 & 10:3 - Here the reference is to walking according to the flesh, which in this case means to be motivated by fleshly desires for gain etc. Note that he says that we walk in the flesh, but do not war according to the flesh - we inhabit the physical realm, but our pattern of behaviour is derived from the spiritual. That the same dualism in view here is clear, I think, if you read on to verse 4, in which the weapons of our warfare, divine and spiritual, are contrasted with literal, physical weapons.

11:18 - This is one of the clearest examples that supports precisely my contention. Here Paul speaks of "boasting according to the flesh", and then provides us with an example of exactly what this entails - giving an account of his historical circumstances and what he has been through in this life. I would take this as strong confirmation of my claims about the meaning of the phrase in 5:16.

Yeah I've got a job. It's tuff to find time to make my posts up to the quality I'd wish for. I know you're very busy aswell, so I thank you for the replies.

My understanding of "according to the flesh" is very similar to what you're saying, but without reading the hellenistic dualism into the text. Perhaps I am reading through Christian glasses, but I feel they are justified by my faith in the unity of the NT. If I held your position I'd have trouble being a Christian. I'm certain that reveals my bias.... Yet you are also imposing the hellenistic dualism on the text as being the best interpretive framework. We get what we pay for, eh?

In 2Cor. 6:4 through to chapter 8 we find Paul tying all this earthly trouble he's going through in with his being comforted. He's commending himself as a servant of God in the midst of all this. He doesn't write off the details of his fleshly existence, but shows how he wars according to the Spirit IN THEM. This is where I see the distinction between Flesh and Spirit. Considering we all walk in the flesh, but should not war according to the flesh, I see that it''s as focus not a totality. Not until the resurrection. Thus viewing Christ nolonger according to the flesh, or anyone else for that matter, would be the same thing. Not viewing them from fleshly perspective. And this doesn't write off their earthly existence but views it from the spiritual perspective. Otherwise, what you're saying seems to lead into gnosticism in a way which you are saying it doesn't. In a way which ignores the details of earthly existence, not just for Christ but for all believers. ...Inotherwords, what you actually are as a person doesn't, matter, you should be viewed as spiritually perfected.

Also the list in chapter 11:18 and following of all those earthly circumstances... are pertaining to weaknesses.... Paul quickly puts a twist into his boasting. It is not necessarily boasting according to the flesh, but it is boasting and thus foolish. Weaknesses, allow power to be perfected. The spiritual realm breaks through in the weakness of the fleshly.

Actually, it is quite contentious whether 1 Cor. 7 is an appeal to Jesus' earthly teaching. It seems much more likely, I think, that this is a revelation that Paul has received from the resurrected Christ. Certainly, there is no record of the teaching that Paul gives here attributed to Jesus in any of the gospels.

I always thought Paul was appealing to Jesus' words concerning divorce in places like Matt. 5 and 19 but maybe I ought to reread 1Cor. 7 again. Whatever the case we can't find much better in any of the other NT writers either.

As for the rest, I think you are tending to read Paul through the filter of Christian habit. Try to find actual examples in the text of allusions to Jesus' teaching. They are virtually non-existent. One of the few clear examples is 1 Cor. 11:23-25, but then you get into further problems about the origin of this tradition; and even if it is from Jesus, this is the only place in all of Paul's writings where he refers to the eucharist. Contrast that with baptism, which he mentions willy-nilly all the time.

Yes I am reading the NT with an assumption of unity, even when I can't find it. Infact having remained faithful to this ideal for so long, and having been rewarded by it, I feel I'm onto something when I find a greater unity. I see your position as a retreated one. It's based on finding unity within small sectors of the NT to the exclusion of others. Whenever some sector of the NT comes in which questions the hypothesis of the already established unity, it is already accounted for as being potentially pseudonymous because it doesn't fit in with the established unity. It seems unfair.

Paul does attribute the eucharist to being something he received from the Lord, from actual historical events.

Again, I think the silence does say an enormous amount, particularly given Paul's proximity to the events (remember, he is writing before any of the gospels existed), but I guess we'll probably just end up disagreeing about that.

I suppose we will. It seems to me that the writings of the NT, are what they are. The purposes, and historical events the aim to address were addressed in the way they were. I find it amazing how little interest most Christians have in the historical teachings of Jesus, as we are discussing in Tercel's thread in Theology 201 right now. An appeal from Paul that "Jesus said such and such" would have been far less convincing to his audience than an appeal to the OT Scriptures. Especially as in your view, the gospels hadn't been written yet, and Paul's knowledge of Jesus' actual teachings may have been slim. Does this mean he writes them off as irrelevant? I don't think so. He came into contact with the truth of the gospel and he presents what he has been taught.

Also, I think it is somewhat naive not to realize that there were political struggles within 1st-century Christianity. They've been there in every other century, why not then? Part of the problem is the illusion that 1st-century Christianity was this utopian fantastic time of harmony, and things just fell apart after then.

I do think there were political struggles in the first century. I just don't see them dividing Paul so radically from what you call "proto-orthodoxy." Galations 2 gives us a lot of insight into these struggles. Paul apparently had relative isolation. And the church did have a bipolar aspect to it. I recognize these things but I don't take them as far.

Enough for now.

[Bernie]

Hi RP,

Your thread has had me thinking the last few days. Since I'm the world's only rational esotericist and esoteric fundamentalist, I see things through that lens, and I've found in Paul's writings a wealth of similarity in meaning and structure also seen in the OT, mainly the prophets, and in Jesus' teachings in the gospels. The hellenistic reading doesn't work for me primarily because of the break from interpretive structure I mentioned earlier, but there are a few other points I thought relevant to the discussion.

When Paul says flesh, he means actual flesh, as is illustrated by verses such as 1 Cor. 15:39 -read it in context.
But I find the entire chapter to be a lesson in the use of 'movement' of truth from one context to another...e.g., the use of particulars in literal language to illustrate equal or greater truth in the spiritual. The attempt to pin a literal "flesh" meaning is incoherent in this regard. Spiritual language is necessarily contextually fluid and resistant to any "only" category. In other words, I find it pretty consist that to dismiss either spiritual or literal meaning in lieu of the other typically presents problems. The Gnostics fail the same as today's hardcore literalists for this reason, trying to separate meaning when its wholeness depends on its homogeny.

The whole range of passages in 1Cor 15 uses the standard comparisons of allegory (the grain sown produces an unlike quantity/quality; comparison of literal fleshly configurations to celestial ones; perishable to imperishable, natural to spiritual, weakness to power, etc. To force a literal flesh meaning on Paul, who so obviously (like the OT prophets who experienced God more closely than the average human) saw reality in its fluid and dual state, seems a distortion.

(b) He saw Jesus Christ as a spiritual counterpart to the earthly Adam, the firstborn of creation, but no as God. He was a "heavenly Adam":

"The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven"
It's true that there're no direct references to trinitarian thinking in Paul's stuff, but to interpret this as his not seeing Christ as God or equal to God lacks subtantiation. For instance, in Gal 1:1: "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead) he seems to implicitly include God and Christ as "co" by stating first that He was appointed not by human agency, but 'through Jesus Christ and God the Father'.

(c) Christ was not truly a human, but only appeared to be such (docetism). Christ was a spiritual counterpart to the human Adam; he was the "heavenly man" as opposed to the "earthly man".
Again, I think this is reading too much into Paul's use of allegorical speech. The comparison of Adam to Christ appears aimed at a relevance beyond the conclusion that "Christ wasn't truly human".

(d) Christ as a historical figure is irrelevant and unimportant.

"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer"
"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised" (1Cor 15:13-15).
If Christ's historicity had no relevance to Paul, how could he arrive at this conclusion?

This is why there is very little reference to actual history - to Jesus' life or his teachings - in his theology.
I think whipartist covered this adequately. It's like Clint Eastwood once said, "A man's gotta know his limitations." Paul was neither qualified nor appointed to instruct us in such mundane matters. He alone had the terrifying honor of meeting the glorified Christ almost face-to-face; the information seared into his psyche from this encounter directed the course of his life and theology.

(e) He believed in resurrection into a "spiritual body", not a physical or earthly body. We become transformed from an earthly body (like Adam) into a spiritual body (like Christ); we cross-over from the realm of the earthly to the realm of the heavenly. At first he thought this would happen in a general resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age; but Paul was generally uninterested in historical eschatology and gradually came to the position that spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death.
I think this is the soundest argument of the hellenistic view, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that he thought spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death...1Cor 4:5?

(f) Salvation occurs by participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit.
Agree, but "thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit" is pretty broad, can mean a lot of things to a lot of folks.

(g) The Old Testament was to be interpreted in terms of a deeper meaning, not the plain sense.

"the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"
Amen to that.

(h) The Jews, by reading the OT literally, came into bondage to the flesh, and are the earthly Jerusalem. Believers are set free in the spirit by a mystical, non-literal reading of the OT, and are the heavenly Jerusalem. The two covenants are the earthly and the heavenly. The law is bad because it is of the earthly covenant, and brings death.
Okay, but the content of the meaning of "bondage", while it may have literal affiliation (as re addiction), is principally a spiritual malady, and it's hard to see how Paul could have thought this bondage tied primarily to literal flesh as it's again not really coherent.

Final thoughts. Good thread. Hope there's more dialog from others.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Hi folks! Thanks for your thoughts!

My understanding of "according to the flesh" is very similar to what you're saying, but without reading the hellenistic dualism into the text. Perhaps I am reading through Christian glasses, but I feel they are justified by my faith in the unity of the NT. If I held your position I'd have trouble being a Christian. I'm certain that reveals my bias.... Yet you are also imposing the hellenistic dualism on the text as being the best interpretive framework. We get what we pay for, eh?

Yes. It's just a matter of deciding which framework makes better sense of the texts. But as to being a Christian, it doesn't worry me at that level, but that's because I have different hermeneutic when it comes to theology. I'm going to have a debate on Tweb after June 18th on hermeneutics, so you might be interested in that.

In 2Cor. 6:4through to chapter 8 we find Paul tying all this earthly trouble he's going through in with his being comforted. He's commending himself as a servant of God in the midst of all this. He doesn't write off the details of his fleshly existence, but shows how he wars according to the Spirit IN THEM. This is where I see the distinction between Flesh and Spirit. Considering we all walk in the flesh, but should not war according to the flesh, I see that it''s as focus not a totality. Not until the resurrection. Thus viewing Christ nolonger according to the flesh, or anyone else for that matter, would be the same thing. Not viewing them from fleshly perspective. And this doesn't write off their earthly existence but views it from the spiritual perspective. Otherwise, what you're saying seems to lead into gnosticism in a way which you are saying it doesn't. In a way which ignores the details of earthly existence, not just for Christ but for all believers. ...Inotherwords, what you actually are as a person doesn't, matter, you should be viewed as spiritually perfected.

But the description he gives of himself in historical terms is explicitly described as being "according to the flesh" (11:18). Indeed, it is not really clear what this qualification is supposed to mean, otherwise. There is nothing inherently shameful in much of what he describes; indeed, much of it is praiseworthy and quite "spiritual" (e.g. "Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure upon me of concern for all the churches"). It is also interesting, I think, that he does not ever describe something historical or earthly as "according to the spirit", and he makes a strong dichotomy between the two (e.g. Rm. 8:4-5). It's not that your reading is completely impossible, it's just, in my opinion, less likely.

Also the list in chapter 11:18 and following of all those earthly circumstances... are pertaining to weaknesses.... Paul quickly puts a twist into his boasting. It is not necessarily boasting according to the flesh, but it is boasting and thus foolish. Weaknesses, allow power to be perfected. The spiritual realm breaks through in the weakness of the fleshly.

I just noticed this in 11:18, that you might read it as saying that his opponents boast according to the flesh, while he is merely boasting (without further qualification). But I think that is an implausible reading, since the KAGW seems to be used with the sense of "I also" i.e. I will boast in the same way. I do not think he is making any contrast between his boasting and that of his opponents - indeed, that is the whole point: he is really saying, "look, if they want to play their silly games, then I can even beat them on their own terms". Nonetheless there is an interesting element of ambiguity here.

I always thought Paul was appealing to Jesus' words concerning divorce in places like Matt. 5 and 19 but maybe I ought to reread 1Cor. 7again. Whatever the case we can't find much better in any of the other NT writers either.

There are substantial problems with that claim, though. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul's main concern is with the intermarriage of believers and unbelievers. That Jesus does not address in the gospels. Indeed, it would not have made sense for him to address it, because he was speaking to Jews, who were the people of God and knew the laws on intermarriage with Gentiles. It is only after the church emerged as a distinct community that questions of believers intermarrying with unbelievers would arise. I think this shows pretty conclusively that Paul is speaking of direct revelation he has received from the Lord.

Yes I am reading the NT with an assumption of unity, even when I can't find it. Infact having remained faithful to this ideal for so long, and having been rewarded by it, I feel I'm onto something when I find a greater unity. I see your position as a retreated one. It's based on finding unity within small sectors of the NT to the exclusion of others. Whenever some sector of the NT comes in which questions the hypothesis of the already established unity, it is already accounted for as being potentially pseudonymous because it doesn't fit in with the established unity. It seems unfair.

But I see your position - if it is intended as getting at the human author's meaning - as intrinsically invalid. You can't read one human author in light of another and assume a unity, no matter whether they may be members of even a very close community. People always have differences of opinion. To read one person in light of another is to fail to take that person on their own terms, and almost certainly to incorrectly read them. At the very least, if there is such a unity, that is a conclusion we should reach after reading each author on his own terms, not an assumption that we make beforehand.

Paul does attribute the eucharist to being something he received from the Lord, from actual historical events.

I am inclined to agree with this, but it is not actually entirely unambiguous. The description is so brief, and the only concrete reference to something historical comes in the phrase "the night in which he was betrayed", that it would be possible to explain this on other terms if one was so inclined. It depends how "docetic" one wants to get in the reading. I think it is docetic, but if you want to make it really ultra-docetic, you could argue that this all took place in some lower heavenly realm, and not in actual earth history. But frankly I think that is too implausible so I'm only pointing it out to show how far you can go in that direction.

I suppose we will. It seems to me that the writings of the NT, are what they are. The purposes, and historical events the aim to address were addressed in the way they were. I find it amazing how little interest most Christians have in the historical teachings of Jesus, as we are discussing in Tercel's thread in Theology 201 right now. An appeal from Paul that "Jesus said such and such" would have been far less convincing to his audience than an appeal to the OT Scriptures. Especially as in your view, the gospels hadn't been written yet, and Paul's knowledge of Jesus' actual teachings may have been slim. Does this mean he writes them off as irrelevant? I don't think so. He came into contact with the truth of the gospel and he presents what he has been taught.

But Paul was writing primarily to Gentiles, who had no particular reason to revere the OT. And Paul's knowledge of Jesus' historical teaching may indeed have been slim, I agree. But those two hypotheses (lack of knowledge and lack of interest) are not mutually exclusive.

I do think there were political struggles in the first century. I just don't see them dividing Paul so radically from what you call "proto-orthodoxy." Galations 2 gives us a lot of insight into these struggles. Paul apparently had relative isolation. And the church did have a bipolar aspect to it. I recognize these things but I don't take them as far.

I just think there was a lot more diversity than you think in 1st-century Christianity, and not just with respect to Paul. The "Golden Age" theory, the idea that early Christians were all harmoniously orthodox, and then in the next generation things fell apart, is just very difficult to sustain in light of the evidence I think.

Your thread has had me thinking the last few days. Since I'm the world's only rational esotericist and esoteric fundamentalist, I see things through that lens, and I've found in Paul's writings a wealth of similarity in meaning and structure also seen in the OT, mainly the prophets, and in Jesus' teachings in the gospels. The hellenistic reading doesn't work for me primarily because of the break from interpretive structure I mentioned earlier, but there are a few other points I thought relevant to the discussion.

I appreciate that Bernie. But the problem I'm raising is that maybe the traditional approach of reading Paul's writings in the light of these other texts, actually distorts his message. That is, the "interpretive structure" you speak of, actually is conceptually different to Paul's way of thinking.

But I find the entire chapter to be a lesson in the use of 'movement' of truth from one context to another...e.g., the use of particulars in literal language to illustrate equal or greater truth in the spiritual. The attempt to pin a literal "flesh" meaning is incoherent in this regard. Spiritual language is necessarily contextually fluid and resistant to any "only" category. In other words, I find it pretty consist that to dismiss either spiritual or literal meaning in lieu of the other typically presents problems. The Gnostics fail the same as today's hardcore literalists for this reason, trying to separate meaning when its wholeness depends on its homogeny.

But I don't think this is true, for many reasons. Firstly, the fact that on dozens and dozens of occasions, Paul sharply contrasts flesh and spirit as diametrically opposing terms, but he never combines them in the way you do, not ever. If you could even cite me a single scripture where he combines them, I would be most interested. Furthermore, I think the meaning of "flesh" as literal is extremely coherent, and indeed, is the only coherent interpretation possible.

The whole range of passages in 1Cor 15uses the standard comparisons of allegory (the grain sown produces an unlike quantity/quality; comparison of literal fleshly configurations to celestial ones; perishable to imperishable, natural to spiritual, weakness to power, etc. To force a literal flesh meaning on Paul, who so obviously (like the OT prophets who experienced God more closely than the average human) saw reality in its fluid and dual state, seems a distortion.

While the seed-sowing of verses 36-38 is an analogy, it seems to me that verses 39 on are not. The analogy is used to introduce and soften up the reader for the literal claim. At some point before verse 45, you're going to have to stop reading allegorically. It seems to me pretty straightforward that the shift from allegory to realism is at verse 39.

It's true that there're no direct references to trinitarian thinking in Paul's stuff, but to interpret this as his not seeing Christ as God or equal to God lacks subtantiation. For instance, in Gal 1:1: "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead) he seems to implicitly include God and Christ as "co" by stating first that He was appointed not by human agency, but 'through Jesus Christ and God the Father'.

On the contrary, Paul here continues his standard practice of referring to "God the Father" and "the Lord Jesus Christ" as two distinct entities, although, as you say, they are jointly responsible for Paul's apostleship. There is nowhere in Paul's writings where he refers to Christ as God. I have gone through Romans with a fine tooth-comb for an assignment, and my reading of the other Pauline texts confirms this. There is one place in Romans where the Greek is ambiguous and the commentators are equally split one way or the other. But that's it.

Again, I think this is reading too much into Paul's use of allegorical speech. The comparison of Adam to Christ appears aimed at a relevance beyond the conclusion that "Christ wasn't truly human".

I don't think so. There was extensive speculation in Judaism, both Hellenistic and Palestianian, about a "heavenly man" of whom Adam was created as the earthly counterpart. There is a vertical dualism here with the earthly man a copy of the heavenly archetype. Furthermore, this language of Christ coming "from heaven" is consistent throughout Paul.

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised" (1Cor 15:13-15).
If Christ's historicity had no relevance to Paul, how could he arrive at this conclusion?

Christ's resurrection had crucial relevance to Paul. It was central to his theology. The question is whether he thought of this as the resurrection of a physical, earthly body, or not, and whether he thought anything about its historical context (as opposed to the mere fact of it having happened) was important.

I think whipartist covered this adequately. It's like Clint Eastwood once said, "A man's gotta know his limitations." Paul was neither qualified nor appointed to instruct us in such mundane matters. He alone had the terrifying honor of meeting the glorified Christ almost face-to-face; the information seared into his psyche from this encounter directed the course of his life and theology.

But this doesn't explain verses like 2 Cor. 5:16.

I think this is the soundest argument of the hellenistic view, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that he thought spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death...1Cor 4:5?

No. I agree that in 1 Corinthians he still has a remnant of Jewish historical eschatology - the idea of a general resurrection sometime soon. It is in 2 Corinthians that he develops the idea of immediate resurrection (see 5:1 onwards). In doing so, he ditches the last vestiges of Jewish eschatology, for a purely Hellenistic one.

God bless!

[Bernie]

the problem I'm raising is that maybe the traditional approach of reading Paul's writings in the light of these other texts, actually distorts his message. That is, the "interpretive structure" you speak of, actually is conceptually different to Paul's way of thinking.

I agree with whipartist's assesment.... "Yes I am reading the NT with an assumption of unity, even when I can't find it. Infact having remained faithful to this ideal for so long, and having been rewarded by it, I feel I'm onto something when I find a greater unity. I see your position as a retreated one. It's based on finding unity within small sectors of the NT to the exclusion of others. Whenever some sector of the NT comes in which questions the hypothesis of the already established unity, it is already accounted for as being potentially pseudonymous because it doesn't fit in with the established unity."

I found this statement a bit odd...

You can't read one human author in light of another and assume a unity, no matter whether they may be members of even a very close community. People always have differences of opinion. To read one person in light of another is to fail to take that person on their own terms, and almost certainly to incorrectly read them. At the very least, if there is such a unity, that is a conclusion we should reach after reading each author on his own terms, not an assumption that we make beforehand.
The reason I find it necessary to reject the hellenistic view is precisely because it must abandon the unity that exists in Scripture in order to remake Paul in his own image. The structure I argued for earlier is a structure created and formed by the Spirit. This necessitates that the assorted biases brought into the structure...which would include Paul's hellenistic background as well as Peter and original apostle's Jewish backgrounds, and any other disposition of these or any Bible author...be supervised by the structure itself. If the structure is spiritual, it possesses as its ground the quality of truth itself (see Jn 14:6 and 18:37).

To pry the meaning of one Bible author from the unity it has with the others and modify it in ways that appear to raise contradictions to that unity will always be treated with suspicion by tradition. To suggest that tradition may be distorting Paul is an acceptable concept until the new reading begins to insert contradictions. For example--forgive me if I've misunderstood you here--in your statement, "The question is whether he thought of....the resurrection of a physical, earthly body, or not, and whether he thought anything about its historical context (as opposed to the mere fact of it having happened) was important.", you seem to imply that Paul is 'spiritualizing' the resurrection by placing its significance outside the act of Jesus being crucified and all the circumstances accompanying it. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that the physical and historical resurrection not only probably didn't take place, but had no real meaning in the traditional sense (that He atoned for fallen man) even if it did.

This is an intellectual and logical obstacle that can't be simply laid aside. It's made even harder to accept in light of your insistence that Paul placed evil in literal flesh. Forcing Paul to jump from the harshly literal to the purely spiritual and figurative, it seems hard to maintain a coherent flow.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The reason I find it necessary to reject the hellenistic view is precisely because it must abandon the unity that exists in Scripture in order to remake Paul in his own image. The structure I argued for earlier is a structure created and formed by the Spirit.

But this is just the problem, and where I suggest we will have to part company. I have several objections:

(a) I don't believe that you can coherently say that Paul, expressing what he consciously believed, in a consciously controlled manner, was "formed by the spirit" at a conscious level. An act can only be the expression of one will, not two. So at best the spirit is removed one step behind the process; he revealed the ideas and doctrines to Paul, and then Paul wrote them down in his own words. But I would say the empirical evidence is absolutely against that, in that the Biblical texts simply do not show the kind of unity of thought we would expect if that were the mechanism of inspiration. That is, the different Bibical texts interpreted grammatically-historically do not show an underlying unity of content expressed in different voices or modes of expression.

(b) I don't believe that this is consistent with the Biblical model of inspiration. I think the Holy Spirit operated at an unconscious level to mold what Paul said as he said it, without in any way over-riding Paul's conscious intent, in such a way as to build into the text a deeper meaning that can be discovered by reading the text canonically. But that is another story.

(c) I don't believe your model of inspiration is consistent with the theology of the divine incognito, and the idea, found throughout scripture, that the meaning of the revealed word is accessible only to the eyes of faith. If determining the meaning of the revealed word was only a matter of finding out what Paul intended, then anyone could do it, regardless of their beliefs.

This is an intellectual and logical obstacle that can't be simply laid aside.

It is an intellectual and logical obstacle only because you make faulty assumptions about the doctrine of inspiration, which in turn, cause you to abandon standard historical-critical approaches to texts, and to misunderstand Paul as a consequence.

Paul has as much right to be read on his own terms as does anyone. If what we are interested in is knowing what Paul thought, of course.

It's made even harder to accept in light of your insistence that Paul placed evil in literal flesh. Forcing Paul to jump from the harshly literal to the purely spiritual and figurative, it seems hard to maintain a coherent flow.

But I'm still waiting for anyone to show me a text where SARX and cognates are used in a "purely spiritual and figurative" manner. Your position would be more convincing if there were some such text. But it seems to me there just isn't, and the only way one can get one, is by reading into Paul different theological assumptions found elsewhere in the NT but not in Paul, and quite contrary to Paul.

Let me put it this way: I do not know of any Pauline text where SARX and cognates cannot very readily be interpreted as referring to something that relates to or originates in the literal flesh, so that the extended meaning of the term is firmly grounded in its literal application. I see very good reason for thinking that Paul used the term in this way. And the only counter-examples I can find anywhere, simply assume that an extended meaning can't be grounded in the literal application, without making any exegetical argument as to why. The only reason they interpret in this way is that they don't want to attribute a proto-gnostic view to Paul. Well, that isn't good enough! It's just trying to re-work Paul's theology to make him appear orthodox.

Let me put it this way. Suppose that the writings of Paul were not in the canon, but were just apocryphal writings from the 1st century. I have not a shadow of a doubt, that virtually all modern interpreters, including evangelicals, would see in Paul's writings a proto-gnosticism. It just seems that clear to me!

Part of the problem, I think, is that the term "gnosticism" is to orthodox Christians like the ultimate bogeyman. Being called a "gnostic" is to be called the foulest kind of heretic and enemy of the true faith. But I think this is just the propaganda of the victors. I think many of the gnostics were genuine followers of Christ; many of them gave their lives for him in the Roman arenas as did orthodox Christians. In retrospect we might place them as a distinct group, but at the time I am sure they just formed part of the continuum of early Christian belief. Maybe we can re-think our attitude towards these people, and then realizing that they were as faithful to Paul as was orthodoxy, will not seem to be so radical.

Indeed, one could argue that the orthodox response to gnosticism embedded in Christian thought and practice some of its most harmful aspects, which led to a strongly heirarchical church with apostolic succession, and vicious dununciations, social isolation, and later, persecution of "heretics", and the inquisition. One cannot read orthodox writers on some of these subjects without weeping. How different things would have been had the Church responded with more charity towards the gnostic controversy. The re-thinking of gnosticism's relationship to orthodoxy requires us to engage in some important re-thinking of the sins of orthodoxy itself, and the frank admission that many of these sins originated in the 2nd-century, and not in later papal abuses. If only the term "heresy" had been kept to its original meaning of one who forms a faction, and separates themselves from the body, then we might see orthodoxy as, in some respects, itself a heresy.

Being called a "gnostic" by an orthodox Christian is about the same as being called a "reactionary" by an orthodox Marxist. It is just a stereotyped image of the ideological opponent.

[Bernie]

Hi RP,

An act can only be the expression of one will, not two. So at best the spirit is removed one step behind the process; he revealed the ideas and doctrines to Paul, and then Paul wrote them down in his own words.
All human act is IMO at base an expression of some ratio of truth and falsity. God is Truth, and if Paul had Hellenistic tendencies, these tendencies were conditioned by the Spirit, if his testimony is true. I don't think many realize the destruction that would necessarily take place in the human spirit in being brought to close proximity to the glorified Christ. Even the original apostles didn't have this experience.

Recording in one's own words the conceptual imagery from a spiritual experience is the base issue here, RP. Though one's dispositions can't be separated from spiritual experience, it's not the dispositions which supervise the meaning but the imposition of truth that supervises the disposition. It's equally "spiritual experience" which produces the doctrines of devils or those of God, and each answers to and is shaped in and by an underlying structure. The 'single will' ultimately testifies, in prescriptive matters, to external Truth: "For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE SHOULD INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ." (1Cor 2:16)

Paul has as much right to be read on his own terms as does anyone. If what we are interested in is knowing what Paul thought, of course.
To read Scripture to 'know what the author thought' is a scholarly occupation, and certainly not without benefit to the truth. But I think to read Scripture to see what God says in it is another pursuit. Sometimes the twain meets, sometimes not. Belief in what the Bible is is the impetus for either path. Hence, I'd agree with your statement, "Let me put it this way. Suppose that the writings of Paul were not in the canon, but were just apocryphal writings from the 1st century. I have not a shadow of a doubt, that virtually all modern interpreters, including evangelicals, would see in Paul's writings a proto-gnosticism."

But I'm still waiting for anyone to show me a text where SARX and cognates are used in a "purely spiritual and figurative" manner.
But RP, the point is that spiritual meaning rides on the back of the language of particulars. We have few words to describe what we barely see [spiritual reality]. Because we know three-demensionally (abstraction), we use the language of material things to express spiritual realities. Would you suggest that Jesus' use of kardia in Mat 15:18-19 means sin comes from the actual fleshly organ which pumps blood through the human cardiovascular system? Metaphor is the vehicle used to move context from literal to incorporeal without losing a literal meaning in the process. I.e., when Jesus said evil comes from the heart, it comes from some actual, literal albeit ethereal reality. I believe this reality to be the property of falsity. When He told His detractors that He would rebuild the temple in three days, the meaning they supposed transferred from a building to His own body, and of course the content of 'rebuilding' as we know carries incredible further spiritual meaning for all who believe. In the end, the Gnostics tended to deny the authenticity of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, something Paul would never do. To say that the Truth Paul received on the road to Damascus led him to the conclusions you suggest in your OP don't make sense to me for these reasons.

Indeed, one could argue that the orthodox response to gnosticism embedded in Christian thought and practice some of its most harmful aspects, which led to a strongly heirarchical church with apostolic succession, and vicious dununciations, social isolation, and later, persecution of "heretics", and the inquisition. One cannot read orthodox writers on some of these subjects without weeping. How different things would have been had the Church responded with more charity towards the gnostic controversy. The re-thinking of gnosticism's relationship to orthodoxy requires us to engage in some important re-thinking of the sins of orthodoxy itself, and the frank admission that many of these sins originated in the 2nd-century, and not in later papal abuses. If only the term "heresy" had been kept to its original meaning of one who forms a faction, and separates themselves from the body, then we might see orthodoxy as, in some respects, itself a heresy.

Being called a "gnostic" by an orthodox Christian is about the same as being called a "reactionary" by an orthodox Marxist. It is just a stereotyped image of the ideological opponent.
You're right, I tend to use the Gnostic term superficially like many others. I actually have a lot of respect for the contribution Gnosticism makes to Christianity. My own theology, that we're all an incredibly complex ratio of true and false and are all pulled to and fro gravitationally by these antithetical forces allows me in the end to forgive Gnostics, you, me and orthodoxy all the same. That evil exists in any organization, religious or otherwise, is a given. It's why "good" people do bad stuff and "bad" people do good stuff.

You sure make me think, RP, and I thank you for the exercise. If we agreed there'd be no mind-stretching and it'd get boring.

[apostoli]

Hello Rupert,

The purpose of this thread is to explore what I have called "the Hellenistic reading" of Paul. By this I mean those scholarly approaches that see Paul as essentially holding to a Hellenistic ontology, and which seek to understand his thought in that context.

Imu, ascribing a "Hellenistic reading" to A.Paul's writings equates to ascribing to A.Paul the teaching of greek philosophy. Which A.Paul himself directly refutes.

Imu, when A.Paul wrote, his world was not "Hellenised" as such but more particularly Romanised. If it was "Hellenised" we'd have a history of philosophised democratic republics, instead of a history of imperialism. Best that can be said is that there was/is a history of limited synthesis of society in the trading centers. Backpack though southern Europe or the middle east and you'll readily relate to that conclusion, instead of a MacDonald's/Microsoft view of the world.

The controversies of the first few christian centuries illustrate the philosophic difficulties that arose between Latin, Greek, Egyptian and Syrian thought and the language difficulties in communicating a consensus of thought. Imo, A.Paul would have encountered the same type of problem in each of the communities in which he taught and would have resorted to using symbolism understood by all communities.

In any event he seems to denigate the philosophies (cp: 1 Cor 1:27) while being fully aware of them (cp: Rom 1:14) and used them as a wedge.

Imo, to accept "the Hellenistic reading of Paul" one has to assume that his audience was educated and versed in the various greek philosophies. Apart from a few libertarians, this seems improbable in non-jewish circles, but not necessarily in disporiac Jewish circles. Judaism at the time was attracting gentile converts from the Roman aristocacy (and consequently their slaves), so there was inevitably a need to explain traditional Jewish understanding using language understandable to the gentile. To my mind A.Paul talks the talk, giving a very Jewish interpretation to gentile symbolism (cp. Rom 1:19-23).

Of interest Thessolonika, Corinth and Rome to whom A.Paul wrote, were major Roman commercial centres that had sizable Jewish communities. A.Paul in Acts, is seen to have preached mainly in the synagogues or in private homes. Not in the streets. And this seems important in his approach. In effect I suggest A.Paul was preaching to the converted - those gentiles who had embraced Judaism but due to the circumcision law, were reluctant at becoming committed (cp. Rom 2:29). Additionally, A.Paul seems to be the backup to earlier missionaries. Not the front runner as he is often depicted (cp. Rom 1:13).

Another point to consider: A.Paul and his cohorts were preaching a Messiah from whom all mankind received salvation. Where as, all other religions of the time (including Judaism) taught the need for personal efforts to get benefits or avoid punishment from their god/s. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent to A.Paul's teaching in hellenised thought.

For this thread, I want to concentrate not on theology, but on the historical question of what Paul actually thought, what he was saying in his historical context.

In the context of A.Paul's teaching I believe he has to be read in the religious context of the Roman world. Historically, Roman society was very pious in regards to their familiar gods and if A.Paul had resorted to the philosophical approach of the then educated world he would have come down to us as just another of the philosophers. In contast A.Paul advocated a proposition that was totally alien to the gentile of the Roman world = that there is one God and his intent is to collect a group of people to be as if his personal children. This would have been meaningful to a Jew or Jewish convert but not necessarily a gentile in Western Europe (the destination of most of his letters).

Paul was not a Palestinian Jew, unlike the other apostles.A.Paul says he was born in Tarsus of the line of Benjamin (Phil 3:5) but spent his youth in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3; 26:6). So his upbringing and education seems to have been as a Palestinian Jew. Taking Luke at his word, that A.Paul studied under Gamiliel, A.Paul must have been advanced in his studies (Gamiliel only took advanced students) and under Gamiliel the philosophies would have been discussed and reconciled to Jewish thought (it was part of the curiculum). The major difference between A.Paul and the disciples is that A.Paul came from an affluent family and had an education advantage.

His first language was almost certainly Greek.Definitely not! If anything it would have been Arabic or Aramaic (local common language). Given his parents were merchants (see Jerome), his second language would have been the international trading language kione greek (in which he wrote) and not classical greek (in which the philosophers wrote). Acts 22:2 says he also spoke Hebrew.

He probably learnt the OT mainly from the LXX, at least until he began his Rabbinic studies.Until he did his studies he may not have been able to read. In all probability his early training was oral. It was common practice for jewish kids to learn the psalms by rote and repeat them by heart.

Paul claims to have been a Pharisee, and I see no reason to disbelieve this (although some scholars have questioned it), but I also see no reason to automatically assume that he therefore adopted the worldview of Palestinian Jews. His mission interests were to the Gentiles, not the Jews, and this suggests some natural affinity with them.Which is consistent with being a pharisee.

Gamaliel wrote in the halakhah: "In a city where both Jews and Gentiles live, a Jew should besides looking after the poor also appoint a superintendent to look after Gentiles and to receive contributions for the poor from the Gentiles, if they want to give any; similarly, one should look after both Gentile and Jewish poor people; visit sick Gentiles, bury their dead and hold funeral speeches for them, console their mourners and clothe their destitute"

He held to a thoroughly dualistic ontology, which saw reality as divided into an earthly, material realm of the flesh, which was (in general terms) "evil" - the visible realm; and a spiritual, heavenly realm, which was (in general terms) "good" - the invisible realm.

Dualism is endemic throughout the OT and Jewish thought. Many an authority have Plato and other philosophers borrowing from Moses. So their dualism may well be compatible with Jewish thought and if so, A.Paul would by necessity have taken advantage of it.

Imu, A.Paul doesn't teach that the flesh is evil as the philosophers believed but rather carnal desires are evil (cp. Rom 6:11-13). A lot gets lost on translation. If you have him saying the flesh is evil then you have him saying God made evil and by consequence Jesus becoming man became evil. Which is the opposite to the teaching of the OT to which A.Paul attends.

Christ was not truly a human, but only appeared to be such (docetism). Christ was a spiritual counterpart to the human Adam; he was the "heavenly man" as opposed to the "earthly man".

If your premise was true then Christ is irrelevent to A.Paul's theology. Jesus in A.Paul's account, was man in all aspects. Otherwise he could not be a counted as the second Adam!

Christ as a historical figure is irrelevant and unimportantAnd yet Christ is the centre point of A.Paul's theology! Imo, A.Paul makes the point that the humanity of Chist is irrelevent but the intent of his humanity is - to be an example to us (Phil 2:5).

Imo, A.Paul's emphasis is us now! We take up the new man, dead to our past - reborn in Christ. Therefore, the historical Chist is irrevelent - our hope is in his resurrection not directly in his humanity! (cp. Rom. 6:5; 1 Co 15:1-2)

I'll stop at this point. As you relayed there is much to discuss..

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks Bernie! I actually think we have a considerable amount of agreement. I completely agree with this statement you make:

To read Scripture to 'know what the author thought' is a scholarly occupation, and certainly not without benefit to the truth. But I think to read Scripture to see what God says in it is another pursuit. Sometimes the twain meets, sometimes not.

I actually don't think the twain ever meets, but I agree with your point.

Would you suggest that Jesus' use of kardia in Mat 15:18-19means sin comes from the actual fleshly organ which pumps blood through the human cardiovascular system?

No, but the gospel of Matthew is a completely different kettle of fish to the writings of Paul. You can't find more completely different works in the NT than these. They emerged from different Christian communities at different times with different intellectual backgrounds and different concerns. The gospel of Matthew, I would suggest, is completely irrelevant to the understanding of Paul. It is a late 1st-century Palestinian Christian document, from a proto-orthodox community, and is concerned with questions of church order and the status of the Jews.

In the end, the Gnostics tended to deny the authenticity of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, something Paul would never do.

But what are these "fundamentals of the Christian faith" that you are talking about here? Do you mean the trinity? Nobody even dreamed of that doctrine until the 3rd century. So what do you mean? If you mean that Jesus was the Messiah and saviour, then the gnostics certainly believed that. You'll have to tell me what these "fundamentals of the Christian faith" in the 1st-century were, because I assure you, whatever you claim are the "fundamentals", there will be many Christians in the 1st-century who didn't hold to them.

To speak of "fundamentals of the Christian faith" makes no sense without the development and dominance of orthodoxy, and that didn't happen until centuries later.

The truths that Paul received on the road to Damascus were used by God to contribute to the development of Christianity. That's as far as I'm prepared to go.

Imu, ascribing a "Hellenistic reading" to A.Paul's writings equates to ascribing to A.Paul the teaching of greek philosophy. Which A.Paul himself directly refutes.

No, it doesn't. I'm not claiming that Paul directly used Greek philosophy. What I'm claiming is that he existed within a Hellenistic milieu, which milieu involved certain basic assumptions about the world which originated in philosophy from before even Plato, but which had "trickled down" into ordinary, non-philosophical, and in particular, religious thought. This involved a basic dualism of a higher spiritual realm which was "good" and an earthly, material realm that was "bad". This found expression in Hellenistic religion and not just philosophy.

Furthermore, the fact that Paul denounced Greek philosophy, doesn't prove that he wasn't influenced by it. We know, for instance, that Tertullian denounced Greek philosophy even more adamantly than Paul ("what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"), yet it is also conceded by everyone that Tertullian himself was thoroughly influenced by Greek thought, particularly stoicism. Indeed, it is impossible to read his attack on Marcion, for instance, without seeing the throughly Hellenistic philosophical character of his thinking.

To give an example of what I am talking about, I would claim that fundamentalism as a movement is essentially influenced by modernism and modernist philosophy in crucial respects. It makes common assumptions with modernism. However, of course no fundamentalist would ever admit this. Every fundamentalist will always insist that he/she is a pure Biblicist, with no philosophical influences at all.

As for the Roman milieu, I don't think intellectually it was far removed from the Greek one. Indeed, all the prominent Roman thinkers in the first couple of centuries after Christ, espoused Greek philosophical systems like stoicism (even one Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius). So I don't think at a philosophical level, there was a great difference. Indeed, Greek and Roman philosophy after Aristotle are generally just lumped together in academic circles.

Of interest Thessolonika, Corinth and Rome to whom A.Paul wrote, were major Roman commercial centres that had sizable Jewish communities. A.Paul in Acts, is seen to have preached mainly in the synagogues or in private homes.

But the huge flaw with this, is your assumption that the book of Acts accurately records the history of the apostle Paul. I do not think it does. I think Luke-Acts was a very late composition, at least a generation after Paul, and was modeled on Josephus. Its account of Paul's life is largely fictitious. He is presented as preaching to the Jews because the author is trying to make an apologetic point against Judaism.

But one thing is clear. Whether he preached to the Jews a great deal or not, he was spectacularly unsuccessful in converting them. Whilst a Christian Jewish community existed for some time in Palestine, there is no record of a distinct Hellenistic Jewish Christian community. The small number of Jews who converted to Christianity in the diaspora, were absorbed into Gentile-dominated congregations. This lack of success in converting Jews is itself an indication that he was fundamentally Greek-oriented in thought.

Another point to consider: A.Paul and his cohorts were preaching a Messiah from whom all mankind received salvation. Where as, all other religions of the time (including Judaism) taught the need for personal efforts to get benefits or avoid punishment from their god/s. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent to A.Paul's teaching in hellenised thought.

Not so. This is a totally inaccurate characterization of Hellenistic religion. The idea of a mystical union with a deity which transformed one via initiation from the realm of the material world to the realm of the spiritual was exceedingly common in the mystery religions, and I am saying that this is very, very close to what we find in Paul. It is true that in Hellenistic religions the deity was generally a "local" deity, but all comers were welcome, including those from other lands. Consider, for example, how the cult of Isis, originally an Egyptian deity, spread throughout the Hellenistic world, being found with many adherents in Rome and every major city in the empire.

if A.Paul had resorted to the philosophical approach of the then educated world he would have come down to us as just another of the philosophers

But Paul wasn't a philosopher and didn't use a philosophical approach. He was a Hellenistic religionist, not a philosopher. His views represent a Hellenistic transformation of Judaism.

A.Paul says he was born in Tarsus of the line of Benjamin (Phil 3:5) but spent his youth in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3; 26:6).

Again, this assumes the historicity of Acts.

Definitely not! If anything it would have been Arabic or Aramaic (local common language).

Not true. The local common language in Tarsus was Greek. Paul and his family would have been unable to function in society if they did not speak that language. It is well known that in the diaspora most Jews spoke the local language, usually Greek, and Hebrew and Aramaic were relatively unknown. That is why the LXX was translated, because people were concerned that most of the diaspora Jewish community were unable to understand the scriptures when they heard them read in Hebrew.

and not classical greek (in which the philosophers wrote)

Nobody is arguing that Paul spoke classical (Attic) Greek, nor that he had read the great philosophers.

Which is consistent with being a pharisee.

Its also consistent with him being a basically Hellenistic religionist.

Dualism is endemic throughout the OT and Jewish thought. Many an authority have Plato and other philosophers borrowing from Moses. So their dualism may well be compatible with Jewish thought and if so, A.Paul would by necessity have taken advantage of it.

This raises a number of complex issues.

1. It is true that 1st-century Jewish thought was dualistic, and it is also true that the difference between the Hebraic and Hellenistic mindset has often been exaggerated, although more recent scholarship is rectifying this. By the time of the 1st century even Palestinian Judaism had been thoroughly influenced by Greek thought. Nonetheless, although we can't demarcate them as sharply as some might have once thought we could, there are certainly differences between 1st-century Palestinian Jewish dualism and Hellenistic dualism. Paul is influenced by the former but basically is grounded in the latter.

2. It is also true that even earlier Judaism was dualistic, but along Zoroastrian and Persian lines, rather than Greek ones. This is seen, for instance, in deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel (although the last is also influenced by Hellenism). Jewish thought in the 1st century was therefore a synthesis of Persian and Greek dualism, as well as pre-exilic, Palestinian Hebrew thought.

3. The idea that Plato was influenced by Moses is thoroughly discredited in the scholarly world. Some early Christian and Jewish writers who admired Greek philosophy claimed that this was so, but the evidence for it is non-existent, and indeed, is completely against it.

A.Paul doesn't teach that the flesh is evil as the philosophers believed but rather carnal desires are evil (cp. Rom 6:11-13). A lot gets lost on translation.

I read koine Greek well, so I'm not relying on translations. And I completely disagree with you; the passage you cited fits perfectly with my view. Paul argues that they should not let sin take effect in their behaviour, and thus "reign in their mortal bodies". But he is not addressing the origin of sin or these sinful desires in these verses. He does so elsewhere. That the body is the origin of sin, and is to be brought into subjection, is taught for example in 1 Cor. 9:27:

but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

If you have him saying the flesh is evil then you have him saying God made evil and by consequence Jesus becoming man became evil. Which is the opposite to the teaching of the OT to which A.Paul attends.

Firstly, the apostle Paul just does not teach that Jesus became flesh. On the contrary, he was a docetist, and expressly teaches that Jesus had a spiritual, not a fleshly, body, and was from heaven, and not a man of dust like Adam:

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

I submit that the straightforward meaning of this text is that unlike Adam, who was made from the earth, and was therefore earthy (which clearly means "fleshly", note the parallel later in the passage), Jesus was not "earthy" and was not fleshly. He was spiritual, and not of flesh and blood. That's what the passage says. That's what Paul teaches throughout his writings.

Secondly, you might argue that the flesh is "evil", and that therefore God created evil, but I think that misunderstands the kind of middle Platonist influence that has trickled down to Paul. Evil was considered as simply the absence of good, not some essence in its own right. God created all sorts of things, including those that are evil, in order to allow for the fulness of being (see Romans 9:21-22, for instance). But he is not evil in doing so, because he is not creating evil so much as creating a being without good. Evil is a lack, a deficiency. You might criticize this view on philosophical grounds, but it was certainly held by Augustine, and I think also by Paul.

If your premise was true then Christ is irrelevent to A.Paul's theology. Jesus in A.Paul's account, was man in all aspects. Otherwise he could not be a counted as the second Adam!

As noted above, in Paul's theology Jesus was the heavenly man, the prototype from which the earthly man was formed as a copy. This was a common idea in 1st-century Judaism. Furthermore, it is only because Jesus was not fleshly, that he could be the second Adam, because the first is earthly and the second is heavenly, as Paul explicitly states.

And yet Christ is the centre point of A.Paul's theology!

Christ, the spiritual, heavenly Adam, is central to Paul's theology; but his earthly appearance - and it was just an appearance for Paul - is irrelevant. What is relevant is what "really went on" behind the scenes, so to speak, in the spiritual realm.

[apostoli]

Hello Rupert,

nb: "r" is sticky on my keyboad so if any spelling looks weird below read it with an "r" inserted ;-)

I'm not claiming that Paul directly used Greek philosophy. What I'm claiming is that he existed within a Hellenistic milieu.My rule of thumb in estimating most things revolves around "explain a rose to a person who has been blind from birth". The paradigm has to shift from one's personal perception to what the other person can comprehend. So I perceive A.Paul using symbolism understood by his audience. A.Paul says to the Jew he acted as a Jew, to the Gentile as a Gentile so he could communicate with them. Seems realistic to me.

Generally, I discount "the Hellenised" idea of the ancient civil world. To me it is like saying the world today is "Americanised". Yep, there are influences but these are not all encompassing. See below.

A.Paul in Acts, is seen to have preached mainly in the synagogues or in private homes.But the huge flaw with this, is your assumption that the book of Acts accurately records the history of the apostle Paul. I do not think it does. I think Luke-Acts was a very late composition, at least a generation after Paul, and was modeled on Josephus.I take Acts as written around 60AD. Several years after A.Paul's letters, so it could be an embellished account.

I can't figure out your correlation to Josephus. Josephus trashed the Jewish zealots in his histories. Compare this to Acts where we have Jews becoming Christians and even the Pharisees defending the chistrians and later pesonally defending A.Paul. As for the fanatics we encounter in the tale, a Jewish perspective before the fall of the temple, was they should have been back in the Holy lands - ie: they were not really Jews as they didn't participate in the atonement sacrifices. So when you read Jews willingly living amoungst paganism, we find in a Jewish perspective a group of people external to Judaism (think Jeroboam).

Its account of Paul's life is largely fictitious. He is presented as preaching to the Jews because the author is trying to make an apologetic point against Judaism.I recently read an derogatory article by a Rabbi who suggests that the tale presented by Luke was to legitimise A.Paul as a Jew and more particularly as a Pharisee. In short: legitamise him to a Jewish community.

But one thing is clear. Whether he preached to the Jews a great deal or not, he was spectacularly unsuccessful in converting them.The only evidence for your assertion would be the book of Acts which you reject as authentic. From the same accounts he was rejected by a large portion of the gentiles as well (ie: the merchants).

Truth be have it, until the 4th century, Christianity was a growing but minor religion in the Roman world and usually viewed as an annoying Jewish cult. As a percentage of population in the Roman world the Jews were a small community. So I don't see anything significant in A.Paul's "failure". Of more significance to me is the success of Chistianity as a moral religion that attracted adherents in a decaying society (economic and political science indicates that in times of stress society becomes more morally religious).

Whilst a Christian Jewish community existed for some time in Palestine, there is no record of a distinct Hellenistic Jewish Christian community. The small number of Jews who converted to Christianity in the diaspora, were absorbed into Gentile-dominated congregations. This lack of success in converting Jews is itself an indication that he was fundamentally Greek-oriented in thought.I'd be interested in viewing your evidence. Romans 2:17,24 seems to conflict with your view.

But Paul's...views represent a Hellenistic transformation of Judaism.If so, so did A.Peter. I'd be interested in viewing your evidence.

Not true. The local common language in Tarsus was Greek.It is true the civil (legal) language was kione but not neccessarily the personal language of the various ethnics in the city.

If I may illustate my perspective - a few years ago I stayed a week in non tourist Hong Kong. As having only recently stopped being a British colony I thought English was the common language there. In the tourist districts that is relatively true. However, in the suburbs extensively false. I was staying near the university district. Yep, there was Maccas, pizza etc and much of the signage was in English near where I was staying but no one in the shopping center spoke English. Elsewhere I was off the tourist track in the center of HK and got lost, and the only person I could find that spoke (broken) English turned out to be a gem merchant.

A.Paul was a Jew in a Greek city. Like most first generation immigrants his parents would have maintained their homeland language (according to Jerome his parents were from Palestine). Tarsus was a major trading town in the southern part of Turkey and I concede that in dealings with the west kione would have been the major trading language. However, the west wasn't the be all to end all, there was also the Parthian kingdom to the east and other Aramaic speaking lands to the south and south west, including Palestine.

Paul and his family would have been unable to function in society if they did not speak that language.But it doesn't need to be his primary language. When I tripped around Turkey, I met a shoe shine man in Ephesus that spoke 7 languages. A commercial neccessity in that country.

In Southern Greece, few people in the tourist centers had conversational English. In the outer towns and villages it is worth knowing archiac English eg: apophacary=pharmacy=chemist=drug store. About the only word I found universally understood thoughout Asia and Southern Europe was the word beer ;-)

It is well known that in the diaspora most Jews spoke the local language, usually Greek, and Hebrew and Aramaic were relatively unknown.I agree with you on Hebrew but not Aramaic. Old Aramaic extended past 200AD when it was replaced by middle Aramaic and then modern Aramaic since 1200AD. It was and is far from a dead language (even though Arabic has supplants it). There is a big difference between "local" and "international". The advantage Greek had over Aramaic in the region is that it generally didn't suffer from the difficulties of dialect. Your arguement would have the Latin speaking Romans having Greek as their local language which is known as being a unrealistic position.

Which is consistent with being a pharisee.Its also consistent with him being a basically Hellenistic religionist.You might have a point. Guess, the Moses based religion of Israel ceased to exist after the destruction of the temple. IE: Judaism ceased to exist!

Dualism is endemic throughout the OT and Jewish thought.there are certainly differences between 1st-century Palestinian Jewish dualism and Hellenistic dualism. Paul is influenced by the former but basically is grounded in the latter.I see it the other way around. His principal reference was the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. There is evidence that other religions (especially in Syria) had a derived expectation but A.Paul's was based on the OT.

A.Paul doesn't teach that the flesh is evil as the philosophers believed but rather carnal desires are evil (cp. Rom 6:11-13). A lot gets lost on translation.I read koine Greek well, so I'm not relying on translations. And I completely disagree with you; the passage you cited fits perfectly with my view. Paul argues that they should not let sin take effect in their behaviour, and thus "reign in their mortal bodies". But he is not addressing the origin of sin or these sinful desires in these verses. He does so elsewhere. That the body is the origin of sin, and is to be brought into subjection, is taught for example in 1 Cor. 9:27It might help if you read the text in context ie: 1 Cor 1:1-27. A.Paul is using the analogy of outward appearance. Compare Romans 2:28-29, 1 Cor 7:17-20.

Imu, A.Paul is simply saying we observe sin from its outward manifestation (the flesh) but it is the inner person that premeditates the sin we see. Imo, his teaching is to intervene in the premeditation. A.Paul often talks about being dead in the flesh - obviously his audience was alive and breathing and he wasn't preaching mass suicide. So when he is talking sarx (flesh) he is meaning something else.

Hebrew had a relatively limited vocabularly to express ideas. Whereas, Greek was rich in words, having many to describes different aspects of the same thing. This is an indicator that A.Paul has not a native speaker of Greek.

Consider Genesis 2:24 and its use of the word flesh.

Firstly, the apostle Paul just does not teach that Jesus became flesh.A.Paul definitely does = Rom 8:3; 5:12-17; Phil 2:6-8.

Note Romans 8:3 in kione. It seems A.Paul is arguing (much like Philo (See below)) that the flesh fails as it gravitates to its earthiness. But Christ proved that the flesh could attain to the heavenly (ie: peri amatias katekpine ten amatian en te sarki).

On the contrary, he was a docetist, and expressly teaches that Jesus had a spiritual, not a fleshly, body, and was from heaven, and not a man of dust like Adam:A.Paul talks of the ascended Christ in a spiritual sense but as noted above he also talks of the one who died for us and was resurrected by the Father as being very much flesh and blood. (cp. 1 Cor 15:3-4)

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit... However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.Read 1 Cor 15:45-50 in context. Also see vs53. The text refers to the resurrection and the context from vs 22-23 the resurrected and ascended Christ.

I submit that the straightforward meaning of this text is that unlike Adam, who was made from the earth, and was therefore earthy (which clearly means "fleshly", note the parallel later in the passage), Jesus was not "earthy" and was not fleshly. He was spiritual, and not of flesh and blood. That's what the passage says. That's what Paul teaches throughout his writings.Generally, a spiritual being cannot die, be buried or be resurrected. These are the three primary teachings of A.Paul regarding the very fleshy man named Jesus before his ascension.

Secondly, you might argue that the flesh is "evil", and that therefore God created evilI was thinking of the dimiurge teaching within philosophy. Philo, a Jewish contemporary of A.Paul, blending Judaism and Greek philosophy had it as the creator of the worlds and even called it a second God.but I think that misunderstands the kind of middle Platonist influence that has trickled down to Paul. Evil was considered as simply the absence of good, not some essence in its own right.Philo in Q&A on Genesis says (v51) the first man was "made up both of earth and heaven". However man made himself "a slave to the earth, the denser and heavier element." I do see A.Paul as having a similar teaching but this may simply have been a Pharisee norm, similiar to a belief in a resurrection.

God created all sorts of things, including those that are evil, in order to allow for the fulness of being (see Romans 9:21-22,for instance).Thats somewhat out of context. See Rom 9:14-20.
But he is not evil in doing so, because he is not creating evil so much as creating a being without good.Contast that idea with Genesis 1, where all things created were initialised as good.
Evil is a lack, a deficiency. You might criticize this view on philosophical grounds, but it was certainly held by Augustine, and I think also by Paul.The OT has sin as "missing the mark" and A.Paul has it "by the law is the knowledge of sin" if you are a Jew (Rom 3:20) or by conscience if you are a Gentile. But followers of Christ are not under any law but are dead to sin (Rom 6:11,14) believers being under grace.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an overview of "evil" across the philosophies and religions. Giving the chistian view (including Augustine) "Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se : and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Aug., De Civ. Dei. xii). The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist" (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii)."

Note the contrast to other beliefs - God did not create evil but allowed it via the exercise of free will to come to exist.

As noted above, in Paul's theology Jesus was the heavenly man, the prototype from which the earthly man was formed as a copy. This was a common idea in 1st-century Judaism. Furthermore, it is only because Jesus was not fleshly, that he could be the second Adam, because the first is earthly and the second is heavenly, as Paul explicitly states.As noted above A.Paul was very much concerned with the resurrected man named Jesus Who was very flesh. Also noted above is Philo's view of Adam being both earthy and heavenly. Philo taught if a man's virtue rested on heavenly things then his soul would become immortal and if it was on earthy things he would return to the ground. This sounds closer to A.Paul's teaching.

Christ, the spiritual, heavenly Adam, is central to Paul's theology; but his earthly appearance - and it was just an appearance for Paul - is irrelevant.Was it not A.Paul that said "if Christ is not raised your faith is vain...by man came also the resurrection of the dead"? (1 Co 15:12-21) A spirit being cannot die, be buried or be resurrected.

What is relevant is what "really went on" behind the scenes, so to speak, in the spiritual realm.Which was?

Hope you have had a good weekend ;-)

Peace

[NormATive]

Your analysis is very thorough, logical, and I believe; correct.

I've always seen this disconnect between the Gospels and Paul's writings since a young age. My parents were very devout Baptist Fundamentalists, and I was raised on total saturation in the Bible. At the age of ten, I could quote verbatim from virtually any book of the Bible. As part of our ritual, it was customary to read from the Old Testament one hour upon waking, and one hour from the New Testament before retiring for the evening.

In this manner, we could easily read the Bible (KJV, of course) in a years time. I figure I've read the Bible in its entirety nearly thirty times.

Over the years, the distinction between the unified human philosophy of the Jewish scripture (Shema), and the New Testament's dualism became clearer and clearer.

No New Testament writer exemplifies this dualistic diversion from Judaism more than Paul.

I concur with your conclusions emphatically.

This conclusion is the major reason for rejecting the Christian doctrine in my opinion.

It so radically departs from what is natural that it almost seems evil to me.

If not evil, it most certainly isn't normative. To so despise the "flesh" as much as Paul (and later, another influential Christian dogmatist: St. Augustine) seems fundamentally flawed and responsible for much of our sadistic, inhumane tendencies throughout history.

It also explains why Christians are some of the first to jump on the war bandwagon when our nation gets into ideological scuffles with other nations. Since the "earthly" world is of little importance; what difference does it make if we risk nuclear annihilation?

Maranatha?

Indeed.

NORM

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks for your post apostoli! I think it is incredibly helpful, because it really brings out the traditional assumed readings of many Pauline texts which I am challenging.

nb: "r" is sticky on my keyboad so if any spelling looks weird below read it with an "r" inserted ;-)

No poblems!

So I perceive A.Paul using symbolism understood by his audience. A.Paul says to the Jew he acted as a Jew, to the Gentile as a Gentile so he could communicate with them. Seems realistic to me.

Yes, but it doesn't resolve the issue of his basic worldview. Indeed, the fact that his attempts to win Gentiles were much more successful then his attempts to win Jews (see below), suggests that he was rather better at being a Gentile to Gentiles then being a Jew to Jews.

I take Acts as written around 60AD. Several years after A.Paul's letters, so it could be an embellished account.

I don't think it was written until the 90s. The gospel of Mark wasn't written until the 70s in my view, and Luke relied on that as well as Q.

As for the reliance of Luke-Acts upon Josephus, here is a link (written by a sceptic/atheist historian, but the argument is generally sound):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

I recently read an derogatory article by a Rabbi who suggests that the tale presented by Luke was to legitimise A.Paul as a Jew and more particularly as a Pharisee. In short: legitamise him to a Jewish community.

He was almost certainly relying on the work of Hyam Maccoby. Maccoby is a respected NT scholar, but is Jewish and is quite hostile towards Paul. He argues that Paul was neither Jewish nor a Pharisee, but basically was a liar, liar, pants on fire. While he takes the argument too far in my opinion, he makes some legitimate points, particularly regarding the radical difference between Paul's exegesis of the OT and 1st-century Jewish exegesis. But a much better source on Paul's use of the OT is Hays, "Echoes of scripture in the letters of Paul", Yale University Press (1989). It is a classic on the subject. Like Hays, I think that Paul's exegesis of the OT was radically un-pharisaical, but I think it is un-pharisaical in a way that is consistent with him having a good knowledge of pharisaic exegesis. In other words, he rejected and rebelled against his pharisaic training, just as Luther rejected and rebelled against his Roman Catholic theological training; but in both cases, the influence of their previous training is nonetheless evident, as much in what they deny, as in what they affirm. I think it is ridiculous to claim that Paul was not trained as a Pharisee and was not Jewish - that is just too far out. But Maccoby seems to think otherwise. The point is that those who adopt a basically Hellenistic approach to Paul, comprise a broad community of ideas!

The only evidence for your assertion would be the book of Acts which you reject as authentic. From the same accounts he was rejected by a large portion of the gentiles as well (ie: the merchants).

Not so. A major theme in Paul's epistles is to find some explanation for the stubborn recalcitrance of the Jews to accept his message. Hence, he argues that a veil lies over their eyes and they employ the wrong hermeneutic of the letter (2 Cor. 3), and that their hearts have been hardened so that salvation could come to the Gentiles (Romans 11:7-11). Obviously we can infer from this that he was nowhere near as successful at converting Jews as converting Gentiles, and this bothered him so much that he developed a theological explanation for the phenomenon (which he no doubt sincerely believed). But I don't think there can be any doubt about his failure with respect to the Jews.

I'd be interested in viewing your evidence. Romans 2:17,24seems to conflict with your view.

See above. As for Romans, you overlook the fact that the Roman church was not founded by Paul, and when he wrote Romans he had never even visited it. So even if we accept that the Roman church was primarily Jewish, that says nothing about Paul's success with Jews. Romans was probably written to gain the support of the Roman Christian community for Paul's missionary endeavours - perhaps financially as well as morally. But you are correct that these references are evidence that the Roman Christian community at this early stage in the history of Christianity was predominantly Jewish.

But there is a simple explanation for that. Probably, whoever went to Rome to evangelize was a Palestinian Jew. It is very likely that they simply did not seriously attempt to evangelize the Gentiles. It was Paul who was the ground-breaker in the attempt to take the gospel to Gentiles. And he had never gone to Rome.

Nonetheless, we know that it was only a few decades before the Roman church was also overwhelmingly Gentile.

If so, so did A.Peter. I'd be interested in viewing your evidence.

Not so, either. We have no way of knowing what the historical Peter actually thought, but given that he was a Palestinian Jew who probably did not even speak Greek (at least only in rudimentary fashion), we can presume that he basically continued the tradition of Palestinian Jewish Christianity, which was just one Messianic sect within the broad community of Judaism. Neither of the epistles attributed to Peter were written by him, and the gospel of Mark had nothing to do with him either, contrary to later tradition.

It is true the civil (legal) language was kione but not necessarily the personal language of the various ethnics in the city.

It was the native and common language of the city. Remember, Tarsus is in Asia Minor, in the heart of what became the Byzantine Empire. The ordinary people there, who were not ethnically isolated, spoke Greek. Now it is possible that Paul's own family spoke Aramaic or some other language, although that is merely speculation. But he would have had to learn Greek from infancy. I don't deny that he knew Hebrew and Aramaic - if he was trained as a Pharisee, he must have. He may have known them from infancy too, for all I know. I don't see how we can resolve that question. But the point is that he would have been well versed in Greek from infancy, and existed in a cosmopolitan Hellenistic environment, where he would have huge exposure to Greek religion and thought. He was not a Palestinian Jew, fishing on the sea of Galilee and speaking only Aramaic. There is a huge difference.

On a few occasions, but nowhere near as commonly as other books in the NT which were written by native Aramaic speakers, Paul's writings do betray evidence of Semitisms in the Greek. Obviously, therefore, he had sufficiently absorbed some Semitic language for it to be evidenced in his mode of expression on rare occasions. However, he also relied frequently on the LXX, and when he doesn't, he often gives poor translations of the Hebrew (or cites some poor translation). This might be put down to his reliance on memory, but that doesn't explain everything. He makes grammatical points that indicate an inadequate knowledge of Hebrew, the kind of naive arguments one hears from preachers who only have a superficial knowledge of Biblical languages sometimes (e.g. Gal. 3:16). So the evidence suggests a working but limited knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew, but a native speaker of Greek.

I see it the other way around. His principal reference was the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. There is evidence that other religions (especially in Syria) had a derived expectation but A.Paul's was based on the OT.

Yes but this focus doesn't account for his worldview. I agree that he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT and as the Messiah and so forth. But that is not incompatible with a reinterpretation of these themes along Hellenistic lines. After all, that's precisely what the Gnostics did. So if it is impossible that Paul could have done it, then it is impossible that the Gnostics could have done it, also. But that is contrary to the evidence.

Let me put this another way. The kind of themes that I am arguing are present in Paul, are undeniably present within Gnosticism only a generation or so later. So I am not pulling these things out of a historical vacuum. Gnosticism did not appear out of thin air! It is only the traditional orthodox view of Gnostics as completely illegitimate and malevolent misinterpreters of scripture that obscures their legitimate historical connection to Paul.

Imu, A.Paul is simply saying we observe sin from its outward manifestation (the flesh) but it is the inner person that premeditates the sin we see.

I honestly don't see how this disagrees substantially with what I am saying. I agree that the term "flesh" in Paul has an extended sense of refering to the whole material, and therefore visible, realm. Hence speaking of "according to the flesh" means "according to outward, visible appearances". The "inner person" in Paul refers to the mind, which is the battleground between the flesh and the spirit. So, yes, the mind ("inner man") premeditates, or if you like, executes the sin. But the desire that gives rise to the temptation to sin originates in the flesh (in the literal, physical sense).

The mind, or "inner person" in Paul is an intermediate entity that is neither good nor evil intrinsically, but rather is the battleground or sphere in which the flesh and the spirit duke it out. That when Paul refers to the "inner man" he means exactly what he means when he refers to the mind, is clear from Rom. 7:22-23, where the terms are used interchangeably. Indeed, you could substitute the word "mind" for the phrase "inner man" whenever it occurs in Paul, and you would not affect the meaning.

Paul is quite clear and consistent on these issues, in my opinion, using his language consistently, and it is only orthodox interpreters that have confused the issue. His ontology is straightforward, as follows:

1. Spirit = heavenly = invisible = good
2. Mind = inner man = realm of battle between good and evil
3. Flesh = material = physical = visible = evil

The verses you cited are perfectly consistent with this!

A.Paul often talks about being dead in the flesh - obviously his audience was alive and breathing and he wasn't preaching mass suicide. So when he is talking sarx (flesh) he is meaning something else.

Not so! This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The idea of being dead in, or to the flesh, is quite basic to the ontology above. What being "dead in/to the flesh" means is not allowing the flesh to influence your mind in any way. That is, the flesh is "dead" in that it does not animate the person anymore. If the mind is purely subject to the spirit and is totally impervious to any influence from the flesh, then the person's behaviour which is an expression of the mind will be totally an expression of the spirit. The flesh will be effectively dead, because it will not animate the person anymore. Only the spirit will animate. So I think your reasoning here is completely flawed, and you're drawn the opposite conclusion to what Paul intended.

In other words, in the ontology above, being dead to/in the flesh means this:


1. Spirit = heavenly = invisible = good
2. Mind = inner man = realm of battle between good and evil
-------------No influence from below-------------------------- <- Death to flesh
3. Flesh = material = physical = visible = evil

The person that is dead in/to the flesh in the sense above, is still physically alive; it's just that their physical body is animated only by the spirit and not by the flesh. The flesh has been brought into complete subjection to the spirit.

Hebrew had a relatively limited vocabularly to express ideas. Whereas, Greek was rich in words, having many to describes different aspects of the same thing. This is an indicator that A.Paul has not a native speaker of Greek.

This claim is dubious (I know Hebrew as well as Greek), but in any case, once one dispenses with the orthodox distortion of Paul (which just renders him incoherent), we can see that he used Greek very precisely and employed the terms it offered in a rigorous and consistent manner.

The inexactness that you see in Paul is not a function of him having a Hebrew mindset - it is a function of you thinking that Paul had an orthodox mindset!

A.Paul definitely does = Rom 8:3; 5:12-17; Phil 2:6-8.

Romans 8:3 sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh

This is, in my opinion, an amazing example of how one's theology distorts one's reading of the text. This verse supports my view in the most direct possible way, in two respects. Firstly, it states explicitly that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh. The Greek is hOMOIWMA, which means "appearance, something made to look like, image". In other words, this verse directly teaches that Jesus only appeared to have flesh, which is precisely what the docetists held and was a widespread view in early Christianity, even being held in mild form by some church fathers. Secondly, the description of Jesus taking on the appearance of "sinful flesh", clearly implies that flesh is intrinsically sinful. Remember, the person being referred to is Christ, who everyone acknowledged was sinless, so why would anyone assume, if he took on flesh, that it was sinful? The point is being made that flesh in intrinsically sinful.

If Paul really held the view you attribute to him, he would have said this: "sending His own Son in the flesh". But he says, rather, "in the likeness of sinful flesh". That is absolutely docetic and Hellenistic.

Romans 5:12-17: This doesn't say anything at all about Jesus having flesh or a human body, but just calls him a man (ANQRWPOS). But we have already seen that Paul thinks there are two kinds of "man" - a heavenly, spiritual "man" and an earthly, material "man", with the latter being the copy and the former the archetype. This is seen clearly in 1 Cor. 15:44-49. So you have no argument here. This passage does not teach that Jesus had a physical body.

As for Phil 2:6-8, again we have classic docetic language. It says that he took on the form (MORFH) of a servant, and appearance (hOMOIWMA, then SCHMA) of a man. He does not say that he became a man, but only that he appeared as a man.

This is reinforced by the fact that he was earlier described as being in the form (MORFH) of God the Father, but is clearly at all times distinguished from God the Father (the word QEOS here, as elsewhere in Paul, always refers to the person of the Father). Hence being in the "form of God" means having the likeness of God, but not being God. Note that in verse 9 we read that "God" has highly exalted Jesus. One cannot exalt oneself. Verse 11 is explicit: every tongue will confess to Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. Paul is no trinitarian. Being in the form of God is not the same as being God.

As an aside, this passage in Philippians is almost certainly a hymn that predates Paul which he is quoting.

These passages, I think, represent classic examples of how orthodoxy has distorted Paul. Read them in context in their natural meaning. They do not say what you think they do.

I challenge you: show me any place where Paul unambiguously affirms that Jesus had flesh. There is none.

Note Romans 8:3in kione. It seems A.Paul is arguing (much like Philo (See below)) that the flesh fails as it gravitates to its earthiness. But Christ proved that the flesh could attain to the heavenly (ie: peri amatias katekpine ten amatian en te sarki).

Already dealt with. This verse does not claim that Jesus had flesh. Not at all.

A.Paul talks of the ascended Christ in a spiritual sense but as noted above he also talks of the one who died for us and was resurrected by the Father as being very much flesh and blood. (cp. 1 Cor 15:3-4)

Paul thinks of Jesus in a spiritual sense at all times, in his pre-existence, in his appearance on earth (which is what he thought it was), and in his ascension. And 1 Cor. 15:3-4 says nothing about the nature of his death and resurrection. That comes later in the chapter. Furthermore, you have failed to note the flow of the chapter, I think. Paul recognizes (being a Pharisee after all), that traditional Jewish Christians - such as the apostles to whom he refers here - believed in a literal, bodily resurrection. But Paul does not. He thinks of that belief as naive (see verses 36-37, where he responds to Greek criticism of the traditional Jewish doctrine by completely capitulating to the Greeks). Nonetheless, he does not want to say outright, look, Peter and those other guys, they were just wrong! He is being diplomatic. He is affirming Palestinian Christian orthodoxy as much as he can, sounding all the right notes, and then he goes on to radically twist the doctrine to a purely spiritual resurrection. Note how he states that Christ appeared to the apostles. This is ambiguous. It might mean a physical bodily appearance, or it might mean a spiritual one.

In short, there is no reference here at all to Jesus having flesh and blood. Indeed, later in the chapter he explicitly rules this out.

Read 1 Cor 15:45-50in context. Also see vs53. The text refers to the resurrection and the context from vs 22-23 the resurrected and ascended Christ.

I am reading them in context! They are crucial to my case. The problem is that you are reading them through the lens of orthodoxy, rather than as they stand. They clearly teach that Christ was a purely spiritual, heavenly man. And as such, he died and was resurrected.

Generally, a spiritual being cannot die, be buried or be resurrected. These are the three primary teachings of A.Paul regarding the very fleshy man named Jesus before his ascension.

This is incorrect, and gets to the heart of the problem. You are making assumptions that are foreign to ancient Greek thought. In ancient Greek thought, spiritual beings and deities certainly could die and be resurrected. When a Greek epic tells of one god killing another god, do you think that means that they thought the gods had flesh? What about the cycle of death and resurrection with the deity Horus, who died and was reborn on a yearly basis. Did Horus have flesh?

In Greek thought, and in Paul, there is no problem at all with a spiritual being dying and being resurrected. It might sound crazy to you, but that only demonstrates how far removed you are from the ancient Hellenistic milieu (and from Paul's thought).

I was thinking of the dimiurge teaching within philosophy. Philo, a Jewish contemporary of A.Paul, blending Judaism and Greek philosophy had it as the creator of the worlds and even called it a second God.

And Origen, a church father who crucially contributed to the development of orthodoxy, referred to Jesus as a "second God", also.

But Paul did not believe that. He did not believe that Jesus was God at all, only that he was a spiritual man who had the form or likeness of God, and was the firstborn of creation.

I do see A.Paul as having a similar teaching but this may simply have been a Pharisee norm, similiar to a belief in a resurrection.

Actually, the pharisee norm was to believe in the existence of a heavenly man who served as the archetype for the creation of Adam. Philo was no pharisee! This is precisely what Paul believes, in Hellenized form. There is a good article discussing this in The Cambridge Companion to Paul, from memory.

Thats somewhat out of context. See Rom 9:14-20.

I don't think so. This passage has been the ground for endless battles between Calvinists and Arminians, and that has obscured its real meaning I think. The Calvinists are more correct on this than the Arminians (with respect to this passage), but Augustine (because he was a neoplatonist) is even more accurate. The thread of middle Platonism runs through this passage.

Contast that idea with Genesis 1,where all things created were initialised as good.

But this is problematic even in the context of Genesis (where did the snake come from, and why did Adam and Eve sin?) As a matter of fact I think a dualism is implicit in Genesis 1-3, but that passage is so remote from Paul that its original meaning is virtually irrelevant. Genesis is only relevant to this discussion, as seen through the eyes of Paul.

The OT has sin as "missing the mark" and A.Paul has it "by the law is the knowledge of sin" if you are a Jew (Rom 3:20) or by conscience if you are a Gentile. But followers of Christ are not under any law but are dead to sin (Rom 6:11,14) believers being under grace...

Note the contrast to other beliefs - God did not create evil but allowed it via the exercise of free will to come to exist.

Paul undeniably sees evil and good as having an ontological basis. The idea that evil was just a lack or deprivation was an innovation of neoplatonism, which did not evolve until centuries later. But Paul is headed in that general direction. Augustine's beliefs are just straight out neoplatonist - he stated quite directly that the neoplatonists had taught him everything he knew about God, and had cured him of Manichaeism by solving the problem of evil for him. The idea of evil being necessary for the sake of a greater good is also Pauline; in this case the greater good is the glory of God (Rm. 9:22). Both ideas are present, in crude form in Paul and in sophisticated form in neoplatonism and Augustine.

But insofar as Paul's view is philosophically deficient, so was middle Platonism in general. Indeed, Plato himself had a big problem in relation to the existence of evil. That is precisely why neoplatonism developed in the direction it did.

As noted above A.Paul was very much concerned with the resurrected man named Jesus Who was very flesh.

I think the considerations above answer this.

Was it not A.Paul that said "if Christ is not raised your faith is vain...by man came also the resurrection of the dead"? (1 Co 15:12-21) A spirit being cannot die, be buried or be resurrected.

In Greek thought, a spirit being certainly can die and be resurrected, as I've discussed above. As for the burial, that was a part of the appearance, which held a deeper spiritual significance (Christ's descent into hades).

Which was?

Christ's death at the hands of evil spiritual principalities and powers, and his subsequent resurrection. The earthly death was merely an appearance that pointed to this spiritual reality.

Hope you have had a good weekend ;-)

Sure did! Thanks apostoli!

God bless,

RP.

[jwarrend]

But the huge flaw with this, is your assumption that the book of Acts accurately records the history of the apostle Paul. I do not think it does. I think Luke-Acts was a very late composition, at least a generation after Paul, and was modeled on Josephus. Its account of Paul's life is largely fictitious.

I was actually going to bring up Acts as well, since it seems imprudent to isolate Paul's writings from Paul's doings in trying to form a coherent picture of what Paul believed. But here you explain why you haven't done that. And that's fine, but it raises a bigger question for me. If Paul didn't write half of the epistles attributed to him, and Peter didn't write the epistles attributed to him (or at least not the 2nd one), and Luke invented his narrative...what exactly are we to do with those books? I believe the only consistent response would be to strike them from the Bible altogether. I accept that you have a different notion about how inspiration "works", but I think it would be a stretch for God to have "inspired" someone who wrote things that are outright lies, and that there could be a deeper, mystical truth hidden beneath such falsehood, independent of the author's intent to deceive. Surely God could have found someone who would at least give a good faith effort to be truthful!

-Jeff

[Rupert Pupkin]

If Paul didn't write half of the epistles attributed to him, and Peter didn't write the epistles attributed to him (or at least not the 2nd one), and Luke invented his narrative...what exactly are we to do with those books? I believe the only consistent response would be to strike them from the Bible altogether. I accept that you have a different notion about how inspiration "works", but I think it would be a stretch for God to have "inspired" someone who wrote things that are outright lies, and that there could be a deeper, mystical truth hidden beneath such falsehood, independent of the author's intent to deceive. Surely God could have found someone who would at least give a good faith effort to be truthful!

Hi Jeff!

There's an upcoming debate where I'll be going into my theory of inspiration and hermeneutics in detail, so I'll leave that aside for the moment. I doubt that any of the writers of scripture were deliberately lying (that is, they sincerely believed what they wrote, or they wrote it with sincere intent, such as using Paul's name because they really thought they were just writing down Paul's ideas). At very least, if they were loose with the truth, or said things without sufficient justification, I think they meant well. But even if they were lying, it doesn't affect my claims.

As proof of this, for the moment I'll just refer you to John 11:47-52. In this passage, the Pharisees and chief priests are having a little business meeting, trying to decide what to do about Jesus. Caiaphas, speaking intentionally with his own meaning in view, says, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." Now Caiaphas did not intend this statement to be a prophecy, and neither did he mean what God meant through him when he said it. All he meant is that it would be better for them to kill Jesus, then for the Romans to come and destroy the country. Now was that statement true? Of course not! It could never be better for anyone to kill Jesus than anything! God forbid! We were better not to kill Jesus and let the nation be destroyed, if it came to that.

Yet although an evil man, Caiaphas, said something that was a lie, the Bible says that he spoke this prophetically - and PROFHTEUW and cognates in the gospel of John and the Johannine literature always refers to an authoritative prophecy from God, usually canonical (such as those given by Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.). And in this case we are explicitly told what the prophetic meaning was. It was predicting Jesus' atoning death for all of mankind.

Now Caiaphas certainly did not mean that Jesus was to die an atoning death for all mankind. But that is what God meant, speaking through him.

I think this establishes my claim.

As for the issue of historicity, we always hear people say that "Christianity is a historical religion". I think this is a half-truth. I think that orthodox Christianity has a minimal set of historical requirements. The following four things must have been actually true as a historical fact in order for orthodox Christianity to be tenable:

1. Jesus incarnated and was truly man and truly God.
2. Jesus lived a sinless life.
3. Jesus was killed.
4. Jesus rose again.

Those are the only historical facts upon which Christian orthodoxy depends. Does Christianity depend upon Jesus having healed two blind men as described in Mt. 9:27-29? No, it is completely immaterial whether this event occurred in real history or not. Absolutely no doctrine of orthodoxy hangs on this having actually happened.

Some people might want to add the virgin birth to the list above, but I think that really just relates to point (1). If you think that a virgin birth would be necessary in order for Jesus to have been truly God and truly man, then the virgin birth becomes an essential historical claim in virtue of point 1. If you think that the virgin birth is unnecessary to achieve the incarnation, as many theologians do, then the historicity of the virgin birth is irrelevant.

Another point to make. Many people think that saying that "Christianity is a historical religion", means that "Christianity is a historically provable religion". But it does not. There are many events that occurred in the past, which we simply have inadequate evidence at the present time available to us to determine what happened. In my opinion, the death and resurrection of Christ in history are one of those things. Acceptance of the historicity of the death and resurrection is a matter of faith, not something that can be established by means of the historical evidence, which is completely ambiguous and indeterminate.

I might end by referring to a quote from Kierkegaard, with which I agree. He said something like (I'm going from memory here): "If there were a community of people, and they confessed that Jesus died for them and rose again, that would be more than enough". I agree with him. When it comes to Christian orthodoxy, "history is bunk".

[jwarrend]

There's an upcoming debate where I'll be going into my theory of inspiration and hermeneutics in detail, so I'll leave that aside for the moment.

Fair enough, although I do think that justifying the removal of Acts from consideration is important, as it certainly would shed much light on Paul's thought, if it were historical.


I doubt that any of the writers of scripture were deliberately lying (that is, they sincerely believed what they wrote, or they wrote it with sincere intent, such as using Paul's name because they really thought they were just writing down Paul's ideas). At very least, if they were loose with the truth, or said things without sufficient justification, I think they meant well. But even if they were lying, it doesn't affect my claims.

It depends on what your claims are about those books. I don't believe in the notion of a "pious forgery" -- to me, that's an oxymoron. It's one thing to say "I'm going to write some stuff down that I think Paul probably would have agreed with". If the "forged" epistles contained only theological content, that would be well and good, although we'd be in something of a jam -- if they merely repeated Pauline teachings, they'd be redundant and therefore not that useful, whereas if they provided new teaching, without precedent in Paul, we'd be unsure what to do with them. But they don't. They contain a lot of historical data as well; references to events that ostensibly happened in Paul's life, greetings to people that Paul ostensibly knew. What is the most economical explanation for why the forgers would include elements like this? To instill in the audience the erroneous belief that Paul had truly written them himself. That is malfeasance, plain and simple.


As proof of this, for the moment I'll just refer you to John 11:47-52. In this passage, the Pharisees and chief priests are having a little business meeting, trying to decide what to do about Jesus. Caiaphas, speaking intentionally with his own meaning in view, says, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." Now Caiaphas did not intend this statement to be a prophecy, and neither did he mean what God meant through him when he said it. All he meant is that it would be better for them to kill Jesus, then for the Romans to come and destroy the country. Now was that statement true? Of course not! It could never be better for anyone to kill Jesus than anything! God forbid! We were better not to kill Jesus and let the nation be destroyed, if it came to that.

Yet although an evil man, Caiaphas, said something that was a lie, the Bible says that he spoke this prophetically - and PROFHTEUW and cognates in the gospel of John and the Johannine literature always refers to an authoritative prophecy from God, usually canonical (such as those given by Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.). And in this case we are explicitly told what the prophetic meaning was. It was predicting Jesus' atoning death for all of mankind.


True, but not a good comparison, to me. Caiaphas said something that he meant one way, that ironically turned out to be true in a way that he didn't expect or intend. That's not at all the same as the author of Luke/Acts writing "here's some stuff that I made up about Paul's and Christ's doings and sayings". And it's not the same as the fabricators of the epistles writing in details for no other reason than to trick the audience into believing they are authentic.

I can accept that there God caused Caiphas to prophecy unintentionally. But this is not the ordinary pattern of such things; the OT prophets were men who followed God and spoke on his behalf, not blowhards who managed to speak truthfully for God despite intending to do otherwise. Moreover, what mystical meaning are we to find in the false historical accounts of Acts? This is the part that no one ever gets past. As you well know, many want to claim things that "Genesis is a myth", but no one ever wants to explain what the detailed genealogies "mean" from a mythical perspective. It's kind of the same thing here. If Acts is a false history, why bother with it?

And I'll go one further. God demonstrates, through the prophets, His ability to speak with great accuracy about events that would take place in the future. Why was He apparently so unable or unwilling to find a 1st century writer to recount truthfully events that had happened in the recent past?


As for the issue of historicity, we always hear people say that "Christianity is a historical religion". I think this is a half-truth. I think that orthodox Christianity has a minimal set of historical requirements. The following four things must have been actually true as a historical fact in order for orthodox Christianity to be tenable:

1. Jesus incarnated and was truly man and truly God.
2. Jesus lived a sinless life.
3. Jesus was killed.
4. Jesus rose again.


I think these are necessary but not sufficient. You can have a saving faith in Christ with no other facts than these, but you certainly can't build the infrastructure of orthodox theology with only these facts. And it raises the question of what basis we can have for affirming these facts to be true in the first place? If the Gospels are apparently guilty of embellishing or fabricating accounts of Jesus' doings and sayings, why can we discard nearly everything they say yet nevertheless maintain these facts as truthful?


Another point to make. Many people think that saying that "Christianity is a historical religion", means that "Christianity is a historically provable religion". But it does not. There are many events that occurred in the past, which we simply have inadequate evidence at the present time available to us to determine what happened. In my opinion, the death and resurrection of Christ in history are one of those things. Acceptance of the historicity of the death and resurrection is a matter of faith, not something that can be established by means of the historical evidence, which is completely ambiguous and indeterminate.


I agree that it's not possible to "prove" the Resurrection, in the same sense that it's not possible to "prove" anything that happened in history. You can always, always come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the historical data but that contradicts the "conventional" explanation. That does not mean that all hypotheses are equally reasonable. I would say that belief in the resurrection as a historical occurence, though not provable, is warranted.


I might end by referring to a quote from Kierkegaard, with which I agree. He said something like (I'm going from memory here): "If there were a community of people, and they confessed that Jesus died for them and rose again, that would be more than enough". I agree with him. When it comes to Christian orthodoxy, "history is bunk".

I don't see why acceptance of this claim does not inescapably lead to "and so is orthodox theology".

-Jeff

[apostoli]

Hello Rupert,

Thanks for you response and the links.

On the contrary, [A.Paul] was a docetist, and expressly teaches that Jesus had a spiritual, not a fleshly, body, and was from heaven, and not a man of dust like Adam:Generally I take docetism as = phantasim. So, to make sure we are on the same page I read up on the Docetae. Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm

It seems there were various forms of docetism. Some denying Jesus was true "flesh" others acknowledging he was truely a man in his "flesh". However, it seems all rejected that he took his "flesh" from Mary.

A.Paul seems to contradict this when he writes "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law" (NASB Galatians 4:4).
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B48C004.htm#V4

I have read criticisms that argued that the words "born of a woman, born under the Law" are spurious - an insertion by an orthadox scribe - but have yet to encounte any actual evidence. To my knowledge the arguement is based on a reconstruction of Marcion's rendition which omits the phrase and Tertullians failure to use it when attacking Marcion. Here is a link to Macion's version of Galatians.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm

Below is an interesting examination of the choice of language A.Paul used (assuming they are his words)...

St. Ambrose has factum where St. Paul originally wrote genomenon, rendered "born" in the A.V. St. Paul designedly, perhaps, wrote genomenon, not gegennhqenta, the more usual word for "born." For gignesqai is used to denote other modes of beginning to exist, besides that in which animals are brought into life; it is used of inanimate, as well as animate existence-e.g., Mark iv. 37: "There ariseth (ginetai) a great storm of wind;" and thus we get the impersonal egeneto, "it came to pass," simply signifying an order of events. The import, then, of the words factum ex muliere, genomenon ekgnnaikoj, is that Christ, in being born in human form, "in the likeness of men," subjected Himself to the limits of human existence, "came into being," that is, in the sensual world. This was his self-emptying (Phil. ii. 7). Jesus, the man, the human person was made-"made man" (Nicene Creed)-was made "man of the substance of His mother" (Atlantas. Creed); but by this "making," St. Ambrose points out, we must understand no more than the taking on of fleshly form. The Son, on the other hand, Who is God, never began to exist, as He will never cease; and even if He had not existed from eternity, He must have been pre-existent, in order to assume a fleshly form so that, in any case, birth of the Virgin does not affect His pre-existence as Son of God, whilst to say that He was ever "made" is to confound that birth with the Son's generation of the Father, eternity with time, the divine with the human order, the self-existent with the created.
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/Christian/Fathers/NPNF2-10/footnote/fn42.htm

A.Paul doesn't teach that the flesh is evil as the philosophers believed but rather carnal desires are evil (cp. Rom 6:11-13).Paul argues that they should not let sin take effect in their behaviour, and thus "reign in their mortal bodies". But he is not addressing the origin of sin or these sinful desires in these verses. He does so elsewhere. That the body is the origin of sin, and is to be brought into subjection, is taught for example in 1 Cor. 9:27Imu, A.Paul is simply saying we observe sin from its outward manifestation (the flesh) but it is the inner person that premeditates the sin we see.I honestly don't see how this disagrees substantially with what I am saying.Consider 1 Cor 3:1-4 & 9:11. A.Paul accuses them of being fixated on carnal things and therefore he has to spoon feed them spiritual things.

His ontology is straightforward, as follows:

1. Spirit = heavenly = invisible = good
2. Mind = inner man = realm of battle between good and evil
3. Flesh = material = physical = visible = evil

The verses you cited are perfectly consistent with this!There is a failure in you premise = A.Paul is refering to the total man. The flesh is the temple of God (thus good of itself), but it is the mind by which we deceive ourselves (1 Cor 3:16-20). See below.

The person that is dead in/to the flesh in the sense above, is still physically alive; it's just that their physical body is animated only by the spirit and not by the flesh. The flesh has been brought into complete subjection to the spirit.But not by the Spirit. It is the carnal mind that is to be governed by the gospel of Christ instead of the ideas of men (cp. 1 Cor 1:30; 2:2-8). "The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God because they are folly to him...But we have the mind of Christ" (RSV 1 Cor 2:13-16)

A.Paul definitely does [have Jesus having flesh] = Rom 8:3; 5:12-17; Phil 2:6-8.
Romans 8:3 sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh

This is, in my opinion, an amazing example of how one's theology distorts one's reading of the text. This verse supports my view in the most direct possible way, in two respects. Firstly, it states explicitly that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh.See the beginning of this post. No one disputes "hOMOIWMA" means appearance. It is essential that the sinless Christ "appeared" to have "sinful flesh" (was identical to every other man biologically but not psychologically. After all he came to do what the law (=flesh) couldn't "condemn sin in the flesh (Romans 8:1-5). vs5 is of interest "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit".

Secondly, the description of Jesus taking on the appearance of "sinful flesh", clearly implies that flesh is intrinsically sinful. Remember, the person being referred to is Christ, who everyone acknowledged was sinless, so why would anyone assume, if he took on flesh, that it was sinful? The point is being made that flesh in intrinsically sinful.If so, then Jesus was an unacceptable sacrifice. Consider Rom 8:7 (RSV) "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God." Also, as the flesh of believers is the temple of God according to A.Paul, it cannot be intrinsically sinfull. see below.

If Paul really held the view you attribute to him, he would have said this: "sending His own Son in the flesh". But he says, rather, "in the likeness of sinful flesh". That is absolutely docetic and Hellenistic.Only if you ignore the surounding text. Also see above.

Romans 5:12-17: This doesn't say anything at all about Jesus having flesh or a human body, but just calls him a man (ANQRWPOS). But we have already seen that Paul thinks there are two kinds of "man" - a heavenly, spiritual "man" and an earthly, material "man", with the latter being the copy and the former the archetype. This is seen clearly in 1 Cor. 15:44-49. So you have no argument here. This passage does not teach that Jesus had a physical body.1 Co 15:49-53
clearly has 1 Cor 15:47 refering to the resurrection. Note vs46 "it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual" (RSV)

As for Phil 2:6-8, again we have classic docetic language. It says that he took on the form (MORFH) of a servant, and appearance (hOMOIWMA, then SCHMA) of a man. He does not say that he became a man, but only that he appeared as a man...This is reinforced by the fact that he was earlier described as being in the form (MORFH) of God the FatherPointedly the terminology of Phil 2:6 has it that the morphe was and is retained. huparcho refers to an antecedent condition which is protracted into the present. This is a subtle distinction to 2:7 whereby Jesus empties (ekenosen) himself of all privaleges and temporarily takes on the morphe of a bondservant. In vs7 we also have the homoiomati = that which has been made after the likeness of something else - Jesus wasn't every man but a paticular man. Then in vs8 we find him not of the morphe of man but the schema = the outwardly perceptible mode and shape of His existence.

This is reinforced by the fact that he was earlier described as being in the form (MORFH) of God the Father, but is clearly at all times distinguished from God the Father (the word QEOS here, as elsewhere in Paul, always refers to the person of the Father). Hence being in the "form of God" means having the likeness of God, but not being God. Note that in verse 9 we read that "God" has highly exalted Jesus. One cannot exalt oneself. Verse 11 is explicit: every tongue will confess to Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. Paul is no trinitarian. Being in the form of God is not the same as being God.By Jesus having the morphe of God, Jesus has all the attributions that one would assign to the Father. At least until he emptied himself, became man and was exalted as a man (vs 8-10). This is a long way from docetism.

These passages [Rom 8:3; 5:12-17; Phil 2:6-8], I think, represent classic examples of how orthodoxy has distorted Paul. Read them in context in their natural meaning. They do not say what you think they do. I challenge you: show me any place where Paul unambiguously affirms that Jesus had flesh. There is none.Because it is obvious. If he was a man he had flesh and blood. Generally, where there is blood there is flesh and A.Paul is very big on preaching our redemption is through the shedding of his blood (eg: Rom 3:25).

Paul thinks of Jesus in a spiritual sense at all times, in his pre-existence, in his appearance on earth (which is what he thought it was), and in his ascension. And 1 Cor. 15:3-4 says nothing about the nature of his death and resurrection. That comes later in the chapter.Indeed we find much talk of the resurrection from the dead. In vs20 A.Paul says "by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (nb: vs15 Jesus didn't raise himself up). In vs51 A.Paul says "we shall all be changed". Given Jesus is the firstfruits of them that slept (vs 20-23) so it appears he too is changed on being resurrected.

Furthermore, you have failed to note the flow of the chapter, I think. Paul recognizes (being a Pharisee after all), that traditional Jewish Christians - such as the apostles to whom he refers here - believed in a literal, bodily resurrection.There is no mention of the other apostles in this chapter. Vs35 would seem to be referring to the Greeks (see 1 Cor 1:14; 3:19)

But Paul does not. He thinks of that belief as naive (see verses 36-37, where he responds to Greek criticism of the traditional Jewish doctrine by completely capitulating to the Greeks).Imu, the Jews have never had a fixed teaching. Some believing even in reincarnation. I'm not aware of the Greeks having a resurrection teaching.

There is the tale of Asclepius who Zeus struck down with a thunderbolt for accepting of money in exchange for resurrection. But this seems to be a morality tale illustrating man's inability to challenge the natural order that separates mortal men from the gods.

In short, there is no reference here at all to Jesus having flesh and blood. Indeed, later in the chapter he explicitly rules this out.Presume you mean 1 Cor 15:50. What you say is true concerning Jesus resurrected. But false, regarding Jesus the man. For if he was not flesh and blood man then there is no resurrection and our faith is in vain. APaul is big on the importance of Jesus shedding his blood and we paticipating in it. eg: om 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16.

You are making assumptions that are foreign to ancient Greek thought. In ancient Greek thought, spiritual beings and deities certainly could die and be resurrected. When a Greek epic tells of one god killing another god, do you think that means that they thought the gods had flesh?Yep. For instance when Zeus rescued the fetal Dionysus, by sewing him into his thigh. Note: Dionysus never gets resurrected but is given two births.

What about the cycle of death and resurrection with the deity Horus, who died and was reborn on a yearly basis. Did Horus have flesh?He had body parts as did all of the gods. I look up the Egyptian Horus and it seems he corresponds to the Greek Apollo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo

Best I found he eventually was associated with the sun. Couldn't find anything that had him born yearly.

In Greek thought, and in Paul, there is no problem at all with a spiritual being dying and being resurrected.The only Greek gods I know of had physicality. Could lose body parts, ate, could cease to exist etc

It might sound crazy to you, but that only demonstrates how far removed you are from the ancient Hellenistic milieu (and from Paul's thought).Not at all. There is more to Hellenisation than Greek thought, there were influences from Egypt, Chaldee and India. Recommend a read of Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies.

Imu, the Hellenised world did not have a personal resurrection expectation (some did have a reincarnation expectation) but rather an eventual seperation of the the soul fom the flesh that entraps it. A.Paul says when we are resurrected we get a new body to clothe us (2 Cor 5:1-4). They seem to be divergent ideas.

Peace

[Rupert Pupkin]

Fair enough, although I do think that justifying the removal of Acts from consideration is important, as it certainly would shed much light on Paul's thought, if it were historical.

OK, but for the moment let's set it aside. Take that as an assumption behind my position, if you like. I don't think it is a very controversial assumption in scholarly circles. The historicity of Luke-Acts is widely doubted. There are well known conflicts between the chronology of Paul's life in Acts and that presented in his genuine epistles, to which all proposed resolutions seem implausible in one way or another.

That is malfeasance, plain and simple.

Even if so, it was well-intentioned malfeasance, I think. We know that this kind of thing went on in the early church quite a bit, and quite a few works that everyone nowadays agrees were not written by the author to whom they were attributed (e.g. the Apocalypse of Peter) were accepted as canonical by most of the early church. Nearly all scholars, even a considerable number of evangelical ones, agree that the Pastoral epistles were not written by Paul, for very good reasons, and that 2 Peter at least was not written by Peter is an almost unanimous opinion amongst scholars, again for extremely good reasons. So the point is, in order to maintain your position you have to go against the scholarly concensus and all the evidence that lies behind it. I just think that's futile. One may as well become a Mormon is one is prepared to go against all the historical evidence.

True, but not a good comparison, to me. Caiaphas said something that he meant one way, that ironically turned out to be true in a way that he didn't expect or intend. That's not at all the same as the author of Luke/Acts writing "here's some stuff that I made up about Paul's and Christ's doings and sayings". And it's not the same as the fabricators of the epistles writing in details for no other reason than to trick the audience into believing they are authentic.

It's exactly the same thing. The irony in question is not due to Caiaphas in any way. It is due to God speaking through him prophetically. So God can speak through a person who is trying to trick their readers, if that is what they were doing.

Indeed, let me quite blunt: according to the Biblical doctrine of inspiration, God could, if he so chose, inspire as prophecy something written by the devil himself. But I will leave off defence of that until the debate.

The rest of your questions on this score will be addressed in the debate.

But this is not the ordinary pattern of such things

Yes it is, a point I hope to establish in the forthcoming debate.

I think these are necessary but not sufficient. You can have a saving faith in Christ with no other facts than these, but you certainly can't build the infrastructure of orthodox theology with only these facts.

Yes you can. No other historical facts are required to establish anything in orthodoxy. Of course orthodoxy involves belief in other things, like the trinity, but that God is a trinity is not a historical claim.

I challenge you to name any historical fact which is necessary for any orthodox doctrine, apart from the four I listed.

The meaning of the gospels is unrelated to their historicity. It lies in their deeper significance for us, which would hold just as much if they were merely stories and myths, as if they were historical. This is not my own invention, but was the view of Kierkegaard, Barth, and neo-orthodoxy generally. So I am operating within a broad theological tradition. I think Wittgenstein (who was much influenced by Kierkegaard) rightly comments:

But in that case why is this Scripture so unclear? If we want to warn someone of a terrible danger, do we go about it by telling him a riddle whose solution will be the warning? - But who is to say that the Scripture really is unclear? Isn't it possible that it was essential in this case to "tell a riddle"? And that, on the other hand, giving a more direct warning would necessarily have had the wrong effect? God has four people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with inconsistencies - but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely historically plausible just so that this should not be taken as the essential, decisive thing? So that the letter should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the spirit may receive its due. I.e. what you are supposed to see cannot be communicated even by the best and most accurate historian; and therefore a mediocre account suffices, is even to be preferred. For that too can tell you what you are supposed to be told. (Roughly in the way a mediocre stage set can be better than a sophisticated one, painted trees better than real ones, - because these might distract attention from what matters.)

I agree that it's not possible to "prove" the Resurrection, in the same sense that it's not possible to "prove" anything that happened in history.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are some things that happened in the past which we can establish with a high degree of probability, and there are other things that, due to a lack of reliable evidence, we cannot. I am saying that the resurrection is in the latter category, and that it is in that category because God wanted it to be there. That, God, quite intentionally, organized the resurrection and its aftermath in such a way as to be unprovable.

When Jesus was alive, people were still unable to determine who he was. And when Peter got it right, did Jesus say to him, "well done, Peter, you are a fine historian, and have proved yourself to be a diligent scholar of historical evidence and the application of principles of historical inference"? No, he said, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven". The ability to know who Jesus was, even when he was standing before you, was something that came from the Father, and was not due to human effort.

If God had wanted us to know the resurrection on the basis of historical evidence, he did an extraordinarily bad job of it. He could have had the resurrected Jesus appear before all the prominent Roman historians of his age, and appear before Caesar in his court, and then there would now be no doubt about it at all. He could have at least appeared to some unbeliever, somewhere, sometime; but in fact, Jesus in his resurrected body only ever appeared to believers. Why? Because God does not want people to believe on the basis of the historical evidence.

Indeed, if one can establish the resurrection occurred on the basis of historical evidence, then our faith in it would be on the basis of human effort and works, rather than divine grace, the Father revealing it to us.

I don't see why acceptance of this claim does not inescapably lead to "and so is orthodox theology".

And I don't see how your approach escapes being a religion of works.

It seems there were various forms of docetism. Some denying Jesus was true "flesh" others acknowledging he was truely a man in his "flesh". However, it seems all rejected that he took his "flesh" from Mary.

Yes, that's right. Paul was in the first category. The author of the gospel of John was in the second category (he believed that Christ had "heavenly flesh", cf. Jn. 6:51). But let us leave aside John for the moment, which would require a whole new thread, and concentrate on Paul, and his "strong" version of docetism (Christ did not have flesh at all).

A.Paul seems to contradict this when he writes "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law" (NASB Galatians 4:4).

OK, we now come to a huge debate. This is one of two crucial verses in Paul (the other being Rm. 1:3-4), which orthodox scribes corrupted so as to make them able to be used against docetism. There are in fact dozens of such instances, and for the evidence I would refer you to chapter 4, "Anti-docetic corruptions of scripture", in Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 1993, 181-261. Ehrman discusses these particular examples on pages 238-239 and also 71-72. The problem is this. The Greek here reads GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, GENOMENON hUPO NO MON. This can easily be read as "come from a woman, come under the law", in which case it constitutes no problem for docetism. The generally received Latin text that Tertullian was relying on, reads factum ex muliere (see your comments on St. Ambrose), which explains why Tertullian never used this verse against docetists, despite having a long section arguing that Christ was actually "born". However, some Old Latin manuscripts read natum ex muliere, which explicitly states that Jesus was "born of a woman", and would have been useful to Tertullian had he known of them. The same corruption found its way into some late Greek texts, where GENNWMENON has been substituted for GENOMENON. This is almost certainly a corruption of the text by orthodox scribes, to make it anti-docetic.

In short: this verse does not teach that Christ was born of a woman, except in a few, corrupted manuscripts in Latin and Greek, which were "corrected" to read that way by orthodox scribes.

Consider 1 Cor 3:1-4& 9:11. A.Paul accuses them of being fixated on carnal things and therefore he has to spoon feed them spiritual things.

That's right, because they were focussed on outward appearances, the material realm, and not on the inward, invisible, spiritual reality.

There is a failure in you premise = A.Paul is refering to the total man. The flesh is the temple of God (thus good of itself), but it is the mind by which we deceive ourselves (1 Cor 3:16-20). See below.

I think the points I made refute this very effectively. The flesh being the temple of God does not imply that it is good; it implies that it should be brought into subjugation to the spirit, and therefore shows forth God's nature in the fleshly, material realm. Only insofar as the flesh is enslaved to the spirit does it become the temple of God.

But not by the Spirit. It is the carnal mind that is to be governed by the gospel of Christ instead of the ideas of men (cp. 1 Cor 1:30; 2:2-8). "The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God because they are folly to him...But we have the mind of Christ" (RSV 1 Cor 2:13-16)

These verses again, perfectly support my view. Note that the gifts of the Spirit of God are received by the mind. The ideas of men represent the ideas that have been generated by the flesh. The carnally minded man, whose mind is in bondage to the literal, physical flesh, cannot accept the things of the spirit. Our minds must first be transformed from bondage to the flesh to bondage to the spirit.

See the beginning of this post. No one disputes "hOMOIWMA" means appearance. It is essential that the sinless Christ "appeared" to have "sinful flesh" (was identical to every other man biologically but not psychologically. After all he came to do what the law (=flesh) couldn't "condemn sin in the flesh (Romans 8:1-5). vs5 is of interest "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit".

Again, you're just reading orthodoxy into the text quite contrary to its contextual meaning. For Paul, Christ emptied himself and came under the law as an appearance, in order to entrap the evil "principalities and powers" into putting him to death. And Rm. 8:5 supports what I am saying precisely: the mind is the battleground between the literal flesh and the literal spirit. You can set your mind on the one or the other.

If so, then Jesus was an unacceptable sacrifice. Consider Rom 8:7(RSV) "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God." Also, as the flesh of believers is the temple of God according to A.Paul, it cannot be intrinsically sinfull. see below.

Not so. According to Paul, if Jesus had had flesh, then he would have been an unacceptable sacrifice. And Paul certainly thinks that the temple of God is intrinsically sinful, but is sanctified by being enslaved to the spirit. The flesh must be put to death.

1 Co 15:49-53
clearly has 1 Cor 15:47refering to the resurrection. Note vs46 "it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual" (RSV)

The "first" and the "second" here refer to the order of appearance in history. Adam came first and Jesus came second. The resurrection is in view, but the idea that it is just the resurrection that is in view is negated by verse 45, in which Adam's creation, his coming into being, is paralleled with Christ becoming a life-giving spirit. The problem is that you are imposing on the text an either/or dichotomy which is directly contrary to Paul's thinking. Paul thinks in terms of archetypes and copies. Therefore, there are multiple applications of the same principle. Christ's coming into being and his resurrection express the same principle, they have the same form. The first stands as an archetype for the second. He does not distinguish them in the way you do.

In short: Paul thinks that Christ became a life-giving spirit both at his creation and at his resurrection. It is not a case of one or the other.

Pointedly the terminology of Phil 2:6 has it that the morphe was and is retained. huparcho refers to an antecedent condition which is protracted into the present. This is a subtle distinction to 2:7 whereby Jesus empties (ekenosen) himself of all privaleges and temporarily takes on the morphe of a bondservant. In vs7 we also have the homoiomati = that which has been made after the likeness of something else - Jesus wasn't every man but a paticular man. Then in vs8 we find him not of the morphe of man but the schema = the outwardly perceptible mode and shape of His existence.

You just can't get to Jesus being man from these verses. They could have easily asserted Christ's humanity is they wanted to. But in every case where his humanity is alluded to, it is qualified by phrases which imply that it was an appearance only.

By Jesus having the morphe of God, Jesus has all the attributions that one would assign to the Father. At least until he emptied himself, became man and was exalted as a man (vs 8-10). This is a long way from docetism.

And to take the MORFH of something most emphatically does not mean to actually be that something, neither here nor elsewhere in koine Greek. And this passage is pure docetism; it is the "docetist creed". The being who pre-existed in the form of God (but was not God) emptied himself by taking on the appearance of humans in order to suffer death, and was subsequently re-glorified above all other created things. Furthermore, the word "God" in Paul always refers to the person of the Father, never to some "divine nature" in abstracto.

Because it is obvious. If he was a man he had flesh and blood. Generally, where there is blood there is flesh and A.Paul is very big on preaching our redemption is through the shedding of his blood (eg: Rom 3:25).

If it is obvious, then why did so many in the first few centuries not see it, and why do so many modern scholars not see it, and why do I not see it? You only think it is obvious because you are reading Paul through the lens of Christian orthodoxy, and not allowing him to speak for himself. In fact, Paul discusses the flesh on many occasions, and had he thought Jesus had flesh, he would have said so. Other writers, who were far less prone to misunderstanding on this score than Paul, certainly did (e.g. 1 Jn. 4:2). But instead of anywhere asserting this, he explicitly states the contrary (1 Cor. 15:44-50). These verses are quite unambiguous on this score (culminating in the statement "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" in verse 50). Was Jesus not a part of the kingdom of God when he appeared on earth, or not? Only our spirits will inherit the kingdom of God on Paul's thinking, not our flesh.

Indeed we find much talk of the resurrection from the dead. In vs20 A.Paul says "by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (nb: vs15 Jesus didn't raise himself up). In vs51 A.Paul says "we shall all be changed". Given Jesus is the firstfruits of them that slept (vs 20-23) so it appears he too is changed on being resurrected.

Not at all. There is no question that Paul believed that Jesus in his resurrected state has the same form that we will have in our resurrection, and that therefore he is the firstfruits of the resurrection. However, Paul does not limit Christ's role as firstfruits just to after his resurrection. He was always the firstfruits, from the moment he came into being. You can't impose an either or onto the text. And yes, Jesus was changed on his resurrection into his final form that he had set aside when he emptied himself. But what he holds in common with us is what he became, not what he was.

There is no mention of the other apostles in this chapter.

I was referring to 1 Cor. 15:5-7.

Imu, the Jews have never had a fixed teaching. Some believing even in reincarnation. I'm not aware of the Greeks having a resurrection teaching.

Then aren't you denying Acts 23:7-8? What about Dan. 12:2? And what about the gospel accounts e.g. Mt. 22:23-32 etc?

As for the Greeks, I thought resurrection of a deity in popular religion (not in philosophy) was pretty common e.g. in Mithraism, but it doesn't affect the argument. Paul hellenized Jewish thought, and this could well include a hellenization of the Jewish doctrine of resurrection. Certainly the idea that the soul continued to exist after death was common, and Paul seems to have just integrated this with the Jewish idea of resurrection.

Presume you mean 1 Cor 15:50. What you say is true concerning Jesus resurrected. But false, regarding Jesus the man. For if he was not flesh and blood man then there is no resurrection and our faith is in vain. APaul is big on the importance of Jesus shedding his blood and we paticipating in it. eg: om 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16.

See comments on 1 Cor. 15:50 above. If Jesus was flesh and blood as man then he was not a part of the kingdom of God, according to Paul. The idea of shedding of blood comes from Mithraism; when a person was initiated, a bull was slain on a grate over their heads, and the blood poured down onto the initiate.

He had body parts as did all of the gods.

That's right, Paul certainly thought that Jesus had body parts - he explicitly states that just as there is a physical, earthly body, so there is a spiritual, heavenly body. But he always denies that that heavenly body has flesh or is fleshly; the idea of a spiritual body is an explicit denial of that.

A.Paul says when we are resurrected we get a new body to clothe us (2 Cor 5:1-4).

In 2 Cor. 4, unlike 1 Cor. 15, Paul says that we get a heavenly, spiritual body immediately upon our dying. We don't have to wait for a general resurrection.

God bless!

[apostoli]

Hello Rupert,

I'll reply more fully to you post a little later For now...

Presume you mean 1 Cor 15:50. What you say is true concerning Jesus resurrected. But false, regarding Jesus the man. For if he was not flesh and blood man then there is no resurrection and our faith is in vain. APaul is big on the importance of Jesus shedding his blood and we paticipating in it. eg: om 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16.
See comments on 1 Cor. 15:50above. If Jesus was flesh and blood as man then he was not a part of the kingdom of God, according to Paul. The idea of shedding of blood comes from Mithraism; when a person was initiated, a bull was slain on a grate over their heads, and the blood poured down onto the initiate.Under Abrahamic law the blood sacrifices were the symbol of atonement. Jesus is depicted by A.Paul as being the replacement for this arangement and for the completion of the law. It is integral to his arguement that the law has been surplanted. So Jesus must have had blood, and If so he must have had flesh.

Your appeal to Mithratic ritual is not reflected in a A.Paul's teaching. Yes, we are sprinkled by the blood of Christ, but not physically. Rather symbolically as each of us is guilty for his death and so we become the alter upon which his sacrifice is offered. (2 Cor 4:10) and thereby our inner nature is renewed everyday (2 Co 4:16)

Peace

[jwarrend]

Thank you for your continued indulgence of my somewhat off-topic replies.


Even if so, it was well-intentioned malfeasance, I think. We know that this kind of thing went on in the early church quite a bit, and quite a few works that everyone nowadays agrees were not written by the author to whom they were attributed (e.g. the Apocalypse of Peter) were accepted as canonical by most of the early church. Nearly all scholars, even a considerable number of evangelical ones, agree that the Pastoral epistles were not written by Paul, for very good reasons, and that 2 Peter at least was not written by Peter is an almost unanimous opinion amongst scholars, again for extremely good reasons. So the point is, in order to maintain your position you have to go against the scholarly concensus and all the evidence that lies behind it. I just think that's futile. One may as well become a Mormon is one is prepared to go against all the historical evidence.

Three thoughts on this. First, note that I'm not necessarily arguing that you should accept 2 Peter or 1 Timothy as authentic. Rather, I'm questioning that, given your rejection of the authenticity of those works, do you therefore disregard them completely? The answer seems to be no.

The second, and related point is, if well-intentioned malfeasance was involved in the fabrications of the inauthentic canonical works, were the non-canonical works also the product of well-intentioned malfeasance? If so, do you give them equal standing as the canonical inauthentic works? If not, why not?

Third, I really don't like arguments that rely on "scholars say". Yes, I recognize it's shorthand for a much larger argument that would take a long time to state. But still, it's highly unsatisfying. Scholars also say, for the most part, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Do you agree with their assessment? No. So clearly you pick and choose which scholarly arguments you accept. On what basis? On the basis, I assume, of whether the reasons behind the scholarly consensus are sound or unsound. Appealing to scholarly consensus therefore strikes me as unproductive.


It's exactly the same thing. The irony in question is not due to Caiaphas in any way. It is due to God speaking through him prophetically. So God can speak through a person who is trying to trick their readers, if that is what they were doing.


No, it's not the same thing! The difference is entirely in the content. Caiaphas stated a single-sentence truism that turned out to be true in a way he didn't expect. Acts contains a historical account of things that didn't really happen, but are represented by the author as having happened. What deeper, mystical truth is communicated by this false history, such that God can be seen to have been speaking through the human author despite his attempt to deceive? If you answer no other question in my post, please answer this one, as it's the most important. It's well and good to say "mystical meaning!", just as it's well and good to say "Genesis is myth!" What is the mystical meaning or mythical meaning of a false history? When you read Acts, what deeper truth does it communicate to you?


I challenge you to name any historical fact which is necessary for any orthodox doctrine, apart from the four I listed.


Let me state my point a bit differently. The point I'm trying to make is, if the NT documents are ahistorical, what basis is there for accepting the four facts you stated as historical? Why not go all the way and accept that Christ never lived at all, or at least, go no farther than saying there is probably a real person behind the gospel myths, but we know nothing about him and certainly can't accept the miraculous claims made about him?


That, God, quite intentionally, organized the resurrection and its aftermath in such a way as to be unprovable.

I don't doubt that you hold this opinion with sincerity and having thought it through. For me, I just simply couldn't say something like this without believing myself to be uttering a major cop out.


When Jesus was alive, people were still unable to determine who he was. And when Peter got it right, did Jesus say to him, "well done, Peter, you are a fine historian, and have proved yourself to be a diligent scholar of historical evidence and the application of principles of historical inference"? No, he said, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven". The ability to know who Jesus was, even when he was standing before you, was something that came from the Father, and was not due to human effort.


That's a good point.


If God had wanted us to know the resurrection on the basis of historical evidence, he did an extraordinarily bad job of it. He could have had the resurrected Jesus appear before all the prominent Roman historians of his age, and appear before Caesar in his court, and then there would now be no doubt about it at all. He could have at least appeared to some unbeliever, somewhere, sometime; but in fact, Jesus in his resurrected body only ever appeared to believers. Why? Because God does not want people to believe on the basis of the historical evidence.


I understand the broader point you're trying to make, but this is exactly the same kind of argument that skeptics make -- "why didn't Jesus appear to a reputable historian of the day?" I just don't think God operates with the peculiarities of the skeptical mind as a primary concern. Doubtless if there was an account in Tacitus or whomever of a visitation by Jesus, it would be dismissed as a later Christian insertion or some such. I don't accept that the Gospels fail to meet the evidentiary standard that is required for warranted belief in the Resurrection. If you do, that's fine, but then what basis do you have for believing it to have happened?


Indeed, if one can establish the resurrection occurred on the basis of historical evidence, then our faith in it would be on the basis of human effort and works, rather than divine grace, the Father revealing it to us.

And I don't see how your approach escapes being a religion of works.


I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at. I don't buy the argument that God has to keep certain things secret because faith is nullified if truth is fully disclosed. Faith isn't just about believing; it's about following God, and doing His will. There are no shortage of personages in the Bible, including the devil himself, who did not lack certain knowledge of who God was and what He wanted, yet they did not follow Him. Why? Because following God is an act of the will, not an act of intellectual assent to the truth of a proposition.

Again, my apologies for derailing the thread somewhat; it's partly borne of my inability to put off raising questions until the debate you mentioned, and partly of my doubt that Steve will raise some of these particular questions I'm bringing up. (Not because of an inadequacy on Steve's part, but merely because he necessarily has different interests and emphases from me and will likely raise questions that are of interest to him, but may not be the ones I want to see addressed). Thanks for bearing with me.

-Jeff

[apostoli]

Hello Rupert,

I challenge you: show me any place where Paul unambiguously affirms that Jesus had flesh. There is none.
On reflection thats a non argument. Pointedly, A.Paul no where directly says Jesus didn't have flesh (a physical body) nor does A.Paul anywhee say that Jesus only had a spiritual body. However, A.Paul does make direct reference to Jesus having a body and blood (Rom 3:24-25; 5:9; 1 Cor 11:27). Then we have Romans 1:1-4 which you suggest provides a controversial reconciliation - "the gospel concerning [God's] Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead." (RSV) At Rom 9:5 A.Paul repeats this assertion saying Jesus is a kinsman of the Jews according to his flesh.

Note A.Paul's words at 2 Cor 5:14-17. Especially vs16&17.

It seems there were various forms of docetism. Some denying Jesus was true "flesh" others acknowledging he was truely a man in his "flesh". However, it seems all rejected that he took his "flesh" from Mary. Yes, that's right. Paul was in the first category.So far you haven't offered any substantiated evidence to support your opinion, merely conjecture. A couple of isolated scriptures, external to A.Paul's overall argument (Jesus' atonement sacrifice fo the fogiveness of our sins) hasn't been beneficial to your case.

The author of the gospel of John was in the second category (he believed that Christ had "heavenly flesh", cf. Jn. 6:51).See Jn 6:60-66. Vs66 is something to personally consider. A.Paul saw Jesus in the same way as A.John regarding the bread & wine = body & blood of Christ. see 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:23-27.

But let us leave aside John for the moment, which would require a whole new thread, and concentrate on Paul, and his "strong" version of docetism (Christ did not have flesh at all).OK, seeing you bought him up, we'll put A.John aside.

In respect to A.Paul you'll have to work harder, going beyond speculation, to show that personally he was in any way shape or form docetic. For instance, you'll have to prove that A.Paul consistently taught that Jesus didn't have an actual corporal body (materiality) and blood, and that he did not actually die for our sins, and therefore there is no resurrected (all were only an appearance).

[Galatians 4:4] is one of two crucial verses in Paul (the other being Rm. 1:3-4), which orthodox scribes corrupted so as to make them able to be used against docetism. There are in fact dozens of such instances, and for the evidence I would refer you to chapter 4, "Anti-docetic corruptions of scripture", in Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 1993, 181-261. Ehrman discusses these particular examples on pages 238-239 and also 71-72.Thankyou for the reference, I've had a look at Ehrman & Baur. If your surmise is correct then the orthodox shot themselves in the foot.

Compare Marcion's version of Galatians 4:21-31 and the orthodox version. If A.Paul was a jewish docetic or gnostic then the orthodox view seems to give a better rendition open to arguement. Especially as A.Paul's premise seems to be about the gentiles through faith being attached to the promise as was Abraham.

An old unitarian argument has it that Jesus is not God/divine because God cannot die, and therefore variously Jesus was just a man or a man whom the spirit descended upon, or a man into which the Logos was incoporated or an incarnated angel. All seem to be happy to accept the canon as is generally received. The trinitarian Luther taught that, Jesus died in his divinity and humanity - body, soul and spirit just as any other man and that he was raised by the Father as A.Paul attests (as did Athanasius, and likewise, Jesus is perfect offspring of God, the Son of God and not God of himself. Which is the Nicene and Orthodox teaching on the Trinity (but not necessarily Augustine)). From an Orthodox viewpoint, if Jesus has two natures hypostatically joined, then they are inseperable. Therefore, if Jesus did die as the atonement sacrifice then he had to die in his complete person as required by OT teaching. We'll defer discussion of this to some other time. I only present it as a preface to the following...

I suspect most evangelicals and catholics will deny Jesus' or man's soul dies at death and cling to the greek/serpent teaching that "you will not die" as the soul has a conscious existence after death = we only appear to die. Possibly, chistianity is docetic in its entirety and for some reason clings to a contradictory text. For instance: Marcion's version of Galatians 1:1 supports common opinion saying "Paul, an apostle, not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, who raised himself from the dead." whereas the accepted canon has it "Paul, an apostle, not of men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead". Possibly, Marcion was a pre-cursor of oneness pentecostalism :-)

I raise the later points as I see them as having import to your argument.

The problem is this. The Greek here reads GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, GENOMENON hUPO NO MON. This can easily be read as "come from a woman, come under the law", in which case it constitutes no problem for docetism.It hurts docetism however you wish to translate it. The docetists' came up with the theory that the Logos entered Mary's right ear and passed though her as a channel. But that left them trying to explain the same term used in respect of the law. Marcion seemed to have the easiest solution - delete the text.

In short: this verse does not teach that Christ was born of a woman, except in a few, corrupted manuscripts in Latin and Greek, which were "corrected" to read that way by orthodox scribes.Guess you understand Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael as myths (Galatians 4:22). However, if A.Paul believed in the promise...

Consider 1 Cor 3:1-4& 9:11. A.Paul accuses them of being fixated on carnal things and therefore he has to spoon feed them spiritual things.That's right, because they were focussed on outward appearances, the material realm, and not on the inward, invisible, spiritual reality.According to A.Paul they were focusing on the Law, circumcision etc rather than the meaning of these things. As Abraham (who pecedes the law) lived by faith so should they - there is no longer either Jew or Gentile for they have all become the visible and outward appearance of Christ - many members but one corporate body (1 Cor 12:27), a witness to the nations. This is the spiritual reality. What Israel was meant to be.

There is a failure in your premise = A.Paul is refering to the total man. The flesh is the temple of God (thus good of itself), but it is the mind by which we deceive ourselves (1 Cor 3:16-20).I think the points I made refute this very effectively.With respect to date I don't perceive you as having addressed them.

The flesh being the temple of God does not imply that it is goodA.Paul admonishes that we should not defile the temple, which implies that the body is not by nature defiled. (eg: 1 Cor 3:16). A.Paul also admonishes that we should glorify God in the body (1 Cor 6:20)

it implies that it should be brought into subjugation to the spirit, and therefore shows forth God's nature in the fleshly, material realm. Only insofar as the flesh is enslaved to the spirit does it become the temple of God.Not according to A.Paul = 1 Cor 6:15-20.

But not by the Spirit. It is the carnal mind that is to be governed by the gospel of Christ instead of the ideas of men (cp. 1 Cor 1:30; 2:2-8). "The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God because they are folly to him...But we have the mind of Christ" (RSV 1 Cor 2:13-16)These verses again, perfectly support my view. Note that the gifts of the Spirit of God are received by the mind. The ideas of men represent the ideas that have been generated by the flesh. The carnally minded man, whose mind is in bondage to the literal, physical flesh, cannot accept the things of the spirit. Our minds must first be transformed from bondage to the flesh to bondage to the spirit.I agree with your terminology but not your intent. It is the bondage to carnal things that is the problem, the body/flesh is innocent of its self - see 1 Cor 7. In A.Paul it is the mind that governs the body/flesh for good or bad.

No one disputes "hOMOIWMA" means appearance. It is essential that the sinless Christ "appeared" to have "sinful flesh" (was identical to every other man biologically but not psychologically. After all he came to do what the law (=flesh) couldn't "condemn sin in the flesh (Romans 8:1-5). vs5 is of interest "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit".Again, you're just reading orthodoxy into the text quite contrary to its contextual meaning.It just happens that this is also a non-orthodox opinion (ie: most unitarians).

For Paul, Christ emptied himself and came under the law as an appearance, in order to entrap the evil "principalities and powers" into putting him to death.You might find an inference in the gospels but not A.Paul. And in the gospels it isn't an entrapment but an act of free will - more specifically direct, concious rejection of Christ.

And Rm. 8:5 supports what I am saying precisely: the mind is the battleground between the literal flesh and the literal spirit. You can set your mind on the one or the other.You have previously stated that the flesh/body is inherently evil. A.Paul says vs7 "to be carnally minded is death". A.Paul at vs13 says something similar regarding flesh.
vs 12 says "you are not debtors of the flesh, to live after the flesh". I understand vs12 as refering to following Jewish or Gentile wisdom/practices - which is the theme throughout Romans. At Rom 8:9, A.Paul says "you are not in the flesh but in the spirit". Obviously, those to whom A.Paul was speaking were literally in their flesh, so A.Paul is giving a different connotation in his terminology to what you wish to construe.

According to Paul, if Jesus had had flesh, then he would have been an unacceptable sacrifice.Guess,like Marcion, you reject the OT and the atonement sacrifices that prefigure Christ. Only perfect flesh was acceptable in the sacifice and the sheding of blood (life is in the blood) was integral to the atonement sacrifice.

And Paul certainly thinks that the temple of God is intrinsically sinful, but is sanctified by being enslaved to the spirit. The flesh must be put to death.Would you substantiate that statement using A.Paul's testimony.

1 Cor 15:46 "it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual" (RSV)The "first" and the "second" here refer to the order of appearance in history. Adam came first and Jesus came second.The first and last are not historical but comparative. Best you read vs49,42-44 these refer to us and correlate to vs46. Note vs48. See below.

The resurrection is in view, but the idea that it is just the resurrection that is in view is negated by verse 45, in which Adam's creation, his coming into being, is paralleled with Christ becoming a life-giving spirit.Sometime ago I read a theosphical society article that had Jesus being the reincarnation of Adam using 1 Cor 15:45 as proof and justifing their supposition on the basis of vs44&46. Contextually, and from texual analysis = higher criticism, this idea is more credible than your proposition.

Imo, 1 Cor:35,38 sets the context of the chapter=the type of body raised in the resurrection. If you ignore the context of the ensuing verses you might suggest that an exception appears at vs45. If so, the first Adam is introduced without being explained. Did the first Adam die and was resurrected? Is he of the dust or the heavenly? See below.

Paul thinks in terms of archetypes and copies. Therefore, there are multiple applications of the same principle. Christ's coming into being and his resurrection express the same principle, they have the same form. The first stands as an archetype for the second. He does not distinguish them in the way you do.Interesting assertion, I notice you made no attempt to substantiate it.

In short: Paul thinks that Christ became a life-giving spirit both at his creation and at his resurrection. It is not a case of one or the other.In an earlier post you suggested fom vs44 that Jesus had a spiritual body, and it seems you equate that as synomonyous with him becoming a life giving spirit at vs45. However, vs46 seems to give us the context that vs45 is talking of the physical and not the spiritual. This seems to be borne out by the following verses. Particulaly vs48 "As was the man of dust, so are those who are of dust; and as is the man fom heaven, so are those who are of heaven" the later refers to those with the mind of Christ. vs50 has it that "just as we have borne the image of man of dust (mortal), we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven (immortal)" (see vs42-43).

I guess you believe A.Paul teaches that Jesus is immortal, and he did not die. Therefore there is no salvation nor resurrection and our faith is in vain. In contrast A.Paul teaches that Jesus died and he was resurrected by the Father.

You just can't get to Jesus being man from [Phil 2:6-8]. They could have easily asserted Christ's humanity if they wanted to. But in every case where his humanity is alluded to, it is qualified by phrases which imply that it was an appearance only.I basically agree. However, he wasn't man in phantasm. His humanity is particularly indicated by the use of the legalistic term schema (things intrinsic, poof of capacity). Phil 2:2-6 is dualistic = for all intents and purposes Jesus was man but also he was originally and remains divine. See my previous post.

By Jesus having the morphe of God, Jesus has all the attributions that one would assign to the Father. At least until he emptied himself, became man and was exalted as a man (vs 8-10). This is a long way from docetism.And to take the MORFH of something most emphatically does not mean to actually be that something, neither here nor elsewhere in koine Greek. And this passage is pure docetism; it is the "docetist creed". The being who pre-existed in the form of God (but was not God) emptied himself by taking on the appearance of humans in order to suffer death, and was subsequently re-glorified above all other created things. Furthermore, the word "God" in Paul always refers to the person of the Father, never to some "divine nature" in abstracto.I agee with you that in all instances when A.Paul says God, he means God the Father. vs6 is basically saying Jesus is the exact repesentation of the Father, but not the Father himself.

If the passage was pure docetism we'd have to delete the last stanza of vs8. Jesus' death was real to A.Paul, not an illusion.

Because it is obvious. If he was a man he had flesh and blood. Generally, where there is blood there is flesh and A.Paul is very big on preaching our redemption is through the shedding of his blood (eg: Rom 3:25).If it is obvious, then why did so many in the first few centuries not see it, and why do so many modern scholars not see it, and why do I not see it?Probably for the same reason the sanhedrin didn't recognise Jesus as the Messiah and A.Paul says the wise of the world thought chistian beliefs foolish ;-)

You only think it is obvious because you are reading Paul through the lens of Christian orthodoxy, and not allowing him to speak for himself. In fact, Paul discusses the flesh on many occasions, and had he thought Jesus had flesh, he would have said so.A.Paul said Jesus had a body and blood. These usually constitute flesh.

[A.Paul] explicitly states the contrary (1 Cor. 15:44-50). These verses are quite unambiguous on this score (culminating in the statement "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" in verse 50). Was Jesus not a part of the kingdom of God when he appeared on earth, or not? Only our spirits will inherit the kingdom of God on Paul's thinking, not our flesh.Is sin part of the kingdom of God? According to A.Paul, Jesus came to be sin for us. In anycase the kingdom symbolism refers to our paticipation in God's arrangement. According to 1 Cor 15:24-25, Phil 2:9-11 and Rom 14:9 the kingdom is now being ruled by Jesus.

Indeed we find much talk of the resurrection from the dead. In vs20 A.Paul says "by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (nb: vs15 Jesus didn't raise himself up). In vs51 A.Paul says "we shall all be changed". Given Jesus is the firstfruits of them that slept (vs 20-23) so it appears he too is changed on being resurrected.Not at all. There is no question that Paul believed that Jesus in his resurrected state has the same form that we will have in our resurrection, and that therefore he is the firstfruits of the resurrection.(?) You've used a double negative, so your position is obscured. In any case, see 1 Cor 15:47-49 where A.Paul indicates we will be in Jesus' (the man from heaven) image.

Paul recognizes (being a Pharisee after all), that traditional Jewish Christians - such as the apostles to whom he refers here - believed in a literal, bodily resurrection. But Paul does not. He thinks of that belief as naive (see verses 36-37, where he responds to Greek criticism of the traditional Jewish doctrine by completely capitulating to the Greeks).Imu, the Jews have never had a fixed teaching. Some believing even in reincarnation. I'm not aware of the Greeks having a resurrection teaching.Then aren't you denying Acts 23:7-8? What about Dan. 12:2? And what about the gospel accounts e.g. Mt. 22:23-32 etc?I replied in the context of the bit I've bolded, not specifically the pharisees. Imu, the pharisees had various beliefs concerning the form of the resurrection - whether or not it related to earthly or heavenly animation of those now asleep in sheol. The type of body the resurrected have - the lame remain lame vs they get a new body etc

As for the Greeks, I thought resurrection of a deity in popular religion (not in philosophy) was pretty common e.g. in Mithraism, but it doesn't affect the argument. Paul hellenized Jewish thought, and this could well include a hellenization of the Jewish doctrine of resurrection. Certainly the idea that the soul continued to exist after death was common, and Paul seems to have just integrated this with the Jewish idea of resurrection.I'm not aware of the Greeks or anyone other than chistians/jews having a personal resurrection belief. Imu, other groups held, when you died you either get reincanated or go to heaven or hades or someother land of the dead.

The soul persisting intelligibly after death is not a Jewish idea and I'm not aware of A.Paul teaching it. It would seem to make the resurrection superfluous.

A.Paul says when we are resurrected we get a new body to clothe us (2 Cor 5:1-4).In 2 Cor. 4,unlike 1 Cor. 15,Paul says that we get a heavenly, spiritual body immediately upon our dying. We don't have to wait for a general resurrection.2 Cor 4:4 seems relevant to your view. vs14 is the only verse that potentially refers to a resurrection in this chapter, and it seems from vs5&12, that it not refering to the general resurrection but to an event particular to A.Paul and other ministers of Christ. An event in which his audience is carried along (vs15).

From the first few versus of chapter 5 your assertion has some credence but only in you ignore vs10 & 17.

Peace

[Rupert Pupkin]

Hi apostoli and Jeff!

Unfortunately I've just completely run out of time at the moment to continue the discussion. I have two large essays due on 18th June and I just can't spare the time until after then.

Jeff: With respect to your comments and questions, I can guarantee you that the points you raised will be addressed in the debate I'm having after June 18th, and if you don't think I do address them there adequately, you're most welcome to raise whichever ones I don't deal with satisfactorily in the debate commentary thread and I'll deal with them after the debate is over.

apostoli: Thanks very much for your comments, I appreciate them and the spirit in which they are given. If you're still interested after the debate winds up I can maybe continue the discussion if you want to then.

God bless!

RP.

[jwarrend]

Jeff: With respect to your comments and questions, I can guarantee you that the points you raised will be addressed in the debate I'm having after June 18th, and if you don't think I do address them there adequately, you're most welcome to raise whichever ones I don't deal with satisfactorily in the debate commentary thread and I'll deal with them after the debate is over.


Ok, I'll look forward to reading the debate, then! Just to restate the questions that I think are most important:

1. If many of the NT documents are purported contain ahistorical details, what is the mystical meaning of such details? It is necessary but not sufficient to say something like "well, Stephen's trial before the Sanhedrin didn't and couldn't have happened, but nevertheless his speech contained profound theological truths". This is incomplete, because their are many historical details that don't contain any sort of doctrine, but merely recount the details of certain occurences. A legitimate response to the question must account for both types of content.

2. If the Gospels are fabrications and do not contain historical truths, then what basis is there for affirming the historical reality of Christ's birth, sinless life, crucifixion and Resurrection, or His divinity?

Thanks, and good luck writing your initial post for the debate!

Jeff

[apostoli]

Hello Rupert,

Give me a heads up or email when you have time to continue our discusion. On reflection I think I see where you ae leading.

Peace.

[Rupert Pupkin]

No worries apostoli!

I'll come back to this thread after the debate I'm currently involved in in the gym is over, as it is taking up all my permitted internet time!

All the best,

Rupert.