POST ONE OF TWO
1) CONFUSION OVER WHAT ONE BELIEVES INSIDE A DEBATE
Hi Mooprea944
I honestly apologize if I have put words in your mouth. No one deserves that. However, you agreed with LightofTruths theory which differs from your explanation.
LightofTruth has been consistent that HIS theory somehow actual sin in actual flesh, including Jesus’ flesh.
SO, when LightofTruth said “A new born baby has the same sinful flesh as every other person.” (post #212)
You responded "Yes, I agree." (post #213) Once you agreed to his theory, your beliefs were bound to be conflated to some extent with his. You were NOT particularly clear that you did NOT believe a baby had sin in it’s flesh. Therefore, your complaint that you were misunderstood is less justifiable than if you had explained that you did NOT, actually, agree with LightofTruths theory.
2) CLEARS THEORY THAT ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY IS MOST AUTHENTIC AND MORE RATIONAL AND LOGICAL THAN THAT OF LATER CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS
Moorea944 says : “But anyhow.... I do like reading your theories though, it's very entertaining!!” (post #234)
My theory is that the earliest Judeo-Christians closest to the time of the original and authentic Christian movement represented the most authentic form of Christianity and, with very few exceptions, THEIR specific doctrines and theories and their interpretations of their text represent the clearest and most rational and most logical and most authentic form of Christianity. This as opposed to the multitude of later competing Christian movements with their specific doctrines and their varying and competing interpretations of the various versions of sacred texts in different languages.
To sum it up, My theory is that generally, the earliest christianity has greater clarity and is superior to the later Christian movements.
3) HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT IN EXAMINING ANCIENT RELIGIOUS DOCUMENTS
a) LightofTruth said : “…the context explains how we are to understand the meaning. Ask any reputable Greek scholar and he will tell you that the context is what's most important when translating for proper understanding. (post #226)
That is my point as well. WHY are you allowed to take these principles out of ancient, historical context and apply your personal interpretation to them? Why not leave them in their original context?
b) LightofTruth said : There are many translations of Scripture which say "sinful flesh". Would you like me to list all of them?
Why?, you would simply be listing inaccurate translations. Even you, now admit “…it is more accurate to say "flesh of sin".” (LightofTruth, post @231) This is a good thing you have discovered.
When you looked up the Greek, you discovered what I told you about Greek was true. Perhaps now, you can consider there is something else about language that you either do not know or are not considering. Since we both agree that ancient, historical context is important to meaning, consider what it meant to Paul the HEBREW, when he referred to “flesh” and the Hebraisms associated with such words as “flesh”, “blood” etc.
4) CREATING MODERN THEOLOGIAL DOCTRINES AND THEORIES WITHOUT CONSIDERING LANGUAGE AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
For example, LightofTruth quotes his corrected version of Romans 8:3 as “…God sent His son in the likeness of the “flesh of sin”. He then continues : "…and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" LightofTruths interpretation and conclusion is that “It would be impossible for sin in the flesh to be condemned if there was no sin in the flesh of Jesus!”
The historical-contextual mistakes of creating this theory on these words are multiple. Firstly, it is easy to see that Paul did not refer to “sin in the flesh OF JESUS”. That concept that Jesus has “sin in his flesh” is layered onto the text which does not have that concept in it.
Another historical-contextual mistake is not to consider what a phrase meant anciently and to the person who wrote the phrase. In early Judeo-Christian literature, there is a different balance between literal and symbolic that exists in the minds of modern, non-hebrew readers than existed anciently. Paul was an ancient Hebrew, using ancient Hebraisms.
5) ANCIENT HEBRAISMS, “FLESH”, “FLESH AND BLOOD”, “FLESH OF SIN”, ETC.
Terms like “flesh and blood” and “Flesh of sin” were Hebraisms for “mankind” in mortality. In early Judeo Christian theology, Adam and Eve originally had glorious, immortal bodies. After the fall of Adam, they and their children had mortal bodies subject to illness and death. This mortal flesh was called “flesh of sin” as opposed to the sinless and glorified flesh their bodies had prior to the fall of Adam.
In early Judeo-Christianity, Adam originally had glorified flesh : “God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw (Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal ” (Cave of Treasures on Creation of Adam)
Jewish Haggadah describes this glory : "When Adam opened his eyes the first time…his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. (The Haggadah - THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE)
In Christian (vita) Adam and Eve text After they lost the glorified bodies and took on the "Flesh of sin” (i.e. mortal bodies they had after the transgression) eve says : “And at that very moment my eyes were opened and I knew that I was naked of the righteousness with which I had been clothed. 2 And I wept saying, ‘Why have you (satan) done this to me, that I have been estranged from my glory with which I was clothed?” This flesh she now had was the “flesh of sin” which all mankind then were born into.
The concept of being “clothed” in a garment of glory and loss of this garment and it’s replacement with a garment of sin is found throughout the early literature. Even the fall of Satan from heaven is cast in this same symbolism. It was said of Lucifer : “...he was cast out, and "Daiwâ" because he lost the apparel of his glory. And behold, from that time until the present day, he and all his hosts have been stripped of their apparel, and they go naked...” (Cave of Treasures, chapt on “The Revolt of Satan”)
Ginzberg noted that the haggadic interpretation of “naked” in Gen 3:7, 10 is that the first pair became aware that they were bare of good deeds. ( cf shab 14a; Meg 32a; GenR 19:6; PRE 14). This also, in view of other ancient Jewish and Christian writers asserting that Adam and Eve had garments and glorified bodies of light before the fall. However, it seems not so much as a bareness of good deeds, but rather a loss of “purity”, a loss of a “primal state” (as the christian Abbaton translator said it.) THIS is why the flesh they had after committing transgression was called “flesh of sin” as opposed to “glorified flesh” before the fall.
The loss of glorified “flesh” was cast in the symbolism of clothing. Thus, regarding Adam, Jewish haggadah says “he lost his celestial clothing .... in sorrow he was to earn his daily bread...” (The Haggadah - The Punishment). In similar symbolism, when describing immortal beings in heaven, apo Peter, an early Christian text says “The inhabitants of that place [heaven] were clad with the shining raiment of angels and their raiment was suitable to their place of habitation.” (The apocalypse of Peter). Early hymns similarly reflect this doctrines in their verses : “ I am clothed with a garment of light...and I am passed beyond the pain and anguish of [mortal] bodies… " (Angad Roshnan - From the Parthian Hymn-Cycles - The Ship of God VIII)
Many example of such Hebraic symbols are found in early literature. For example, in the “Rechabite” vision of heaven, the heavenly individuals explain : “But we are not naked as you suppose, for we are covered with a covering of glory… we are covered with a stole of glory (similar to that) which clothed Adam and Eve before they sinned.” (History of the Rechabites 12:3)
In early Judeo-Christian tradition, before they sinned, Adam and Eve had “flesh of glory”, and after they sinned, they had “flesh of sin”. “Flesh of sin” was a Hebraism that simply described mortal “mankind” similar to the use of the Hebraism “flesh and blood”.
“Flesh and blood” is another Hebraism that denotes mankind in general. The phrase “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee” (of Matt 16:17) simply means “no person hath revealed it to thee.” When Paul points out that “…we fight not with flesh and blood only” (Eph 6:12) the next phrase clarifies the meaning ”the idolatrous rulers and other wicked men of the present age…”
Rabbinic Jews still use this hebraism nowadays. There are multiple examples in the Mishneh Torah that use this Hebraism. For examples (from Sefer Ahavah, Berachot) it is taught that “ One who sees a gentile wise man should recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has given from His wisdom to flesh and blood.” And upon seeing a Gentile king, one “…should recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has given from His glory to flesh and blood."
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
1) CONFUSION OVER WHAT ONE BELIEVES INSIDE A DEBATE
Hi Mooprea944
I honestly apologize if I have put words in your mouth. No one deserves that. However, you agreed with LightofTruths theory which differs from your explanation.
LightofTruth has been consistent that HIS theory somehow actual sin in actual flesh, including Jesus’ flesh.
SO, when LightofTruth said “A new born baby has the same sinful flesh as every other person.” (post #212)
You responded "Yes, I agree." (post #213) Once you agreed to his theory, your beliefs were bound to be conflated to some extent with his. You were NOT particularly clear that you did NOT believe a baby had sin in it’s flesh. Therefore, your complaint that you were misunderstood is less justifiable than if you had explained that you did NOT, actually, agree with LightofTruths theory.
2) CLEARS THEORY THAT ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY IS MOST AUTHENTIC AND MORE RATIONAL AND LOGICAL THAN THAT OF LATER CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS
Moorea944 says : “But anyhow.... I do like reading your theories though, it's very entertaining!!” (post #234)
My theory is that the earliest Judeo-Christians closest to the time of the original and authentic Christian movement represented the most authentic form of Christianity and, with very few exceptions, THEIR specific doctrines and theories and their interpretations of their text represent the clearest and most rational and most logical and most authentic form of Christianity. This as opposed to the multitude of later competing Christian movements with their specific doctrines and their varying and competing interpretations of the various versions of sacred texts in different languages.
To sum it up, My theory is that generally, the earliest christianity has greater clarity and is superior to the later Christian movements.
3) HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT IN EXAMINING ANCIENT RELIGIOUS DOCUMENTS
a) LightofTruth said : “…the context explains how we are to understand the meaning. Ask any reputable Greek scholar and he will tell you that the context is what's most important when translating for proper understanding. (post #226)
That is my point as well. WHY are you allowed to take these principles out of ancient, historical context and apply your personal interpretation to them? Why not leave them in their original context?
b) LightofTruth said : There are many translations of Scripture which say "sinful flesh". Would you like me to list all of them?
Why?, you would simply be listing inaccurate translations. Even you, now admit “…it is more accurate to say "flesh of sin".” (LightofTruth, post @231) This is a good thing you have discovered.
When you looked up the Greek, you discovered what I told you about Greek was true. Perhaps now, you can consider there is something else about language that you either do not know or are not considering. Since we both agree that ancient, historical context is important to meaning, consider what it meant to Paul the HEBREW, when he referred to “flesh” and the Hebraisms associated with such words as “flesh”, “blood” etc.
4) CREATING MODERN THEOLOGIAL DOCTRINES AND THEORIES WITHOUT CONSIDERING LANGUAGE AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
For example, LightofTruth quotes his corrected version of Romans 8:3 as “…God sent His son in the likeness of the “flesh of sin”. He then continues : "…and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" LightofTruths interpretation and conclusion is that “It would be impossible for sin in the flesh to be condemned if there was no sin in the flesh of Jesus!”
The historical-contextual mistakes of creating this theory on these words are multiple. Firstly, it is easy to see that Paul did not refer to “sin in the flesh OF JESUS”. That concept that Jesus has “sin in his flesh” is layered onto the text which does not have that concept in it.
Another historical-contextual mistake is not to consider what a phrase meant anciently and to the person who wrote the phrase. In early Judeo-Christian literature, there is a different balance between literal and symbolic that exists in the minds of modern, non-hebrew readers than existed anciently. Paul was an ancient Hebrew, using ancient Hebraisms.
5) ANCIENT HEBRAISMS, “FLESH”, “FLESH AND BLOOD”, “FLESH OF SIN”, ETC.
Terms like “flesh and blood” and “Flesh of sin” were Hebraisms for “mankind” in mortality. In early Judeo Christian theology, Adam and Eve originally had glorious, immortal bodies. After the fall of Adam, they and their children had mortal bodies subject to illness and death. This mortal flesh was called “flesh of sin” as opposed to the sinless and glorified flesh their bodies had prior to the fall of Adam.
In early Judeo-Christianity, Adam originally had glorified flesh : “God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw (Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal ” (Cave of Treasures on Creation of Adam)
Jewish Haggadah describes this glory : "When Adam opened his eyes the first time…his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. (The Haggadah - THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE)
In Christian (vita) Adam and Eve text After they lost the glorified bodies and took on the "Flesh of sin” (i.e. mortal bodies they had after the transgression) eve says : “And at that very moment my eyes were opened and I knew that I was naked of the righteousness with which I had been clothed. 2 And I wept saying, ‘Why have you (satan) done this to me, that I have been estranged from my glory with which I was clothed?” This flesh she now had was the “flesh of sin” which all mankind then were born into.
The concept of being “clothed” in a garment of glory and loss of this garment and it’s replacement with a garment of sin is found throughout the early literature. Even the fall of Satan from heaven is cast in this same symbolism. It was said of Lucifer : “...he was cast out, and "Daiwâ" because he lost the apparel of his glory. And behold, from that time until the present day, he and all his hosts have been stripped of their apparel, and they go naked...” (Cave of Treasures, chapt on “The Revolt of Satan”)
Ginzberg noted that the haggadic interpretation of “naked” in Gen 3:7, 10 is that the first pair became aware that they were bare of good deeds. ( cf shab 14a; Meg 32a; GenR 19:6; PRE 14). This also, in view of other ancient Jewish and Christian writers asserting that Adam and Eve had garments and glorified bodies of light before the fall. However, it seems not so much as a bareness of good deeds, but rather a loss of “purity”, a loss of a “primal state” (as the christian Abbaton translator said it.) THIS is why the flesh they had after committing transgression was called “flesh of sin” as opposed to “glorified flesh” before the fall.
The loss of glorified “flesh” was cast in the symbolism of clothing. Thus, regarding Adam, Jewish haggadah says “he lost his celestial clothing .... in sorrow he was to earn his daily bread...” (The Haggadah - The Punishment). In similar symbolism, when describing immortal beings in heaven, apo Peter, an early Christian text says “The inhabitants of that place [heaven] were clad with the shining raiment of angels and their raiment was suitable to their place of habitation.” (The apocalypse of Peter). Early hymns similarly reflect this doctrines in their verses : “ I am clothed with a garment of light...and I am passed beyond the pain and anguish of [mortal] bodies… " (Angad Roshnan - From the Parthian Hymn-Cycles - The Ship of God VIII)
Many example of such Hebraic symbols are found in early literature. For example, in the “Rechabite” vision of heaven, the heavenly individuals explain : “But we are not naked as you suppose, for we are covered with a covering of glory… we are covered with a stole of glory (similar to that) which clothed Adam and Eve before they sinned.” (History of the Rechabites 12:3)
In early Judeo-Christian tradition, before they sinned, Adam and Eve had “flesh of glory”, and after they sinned, they had “flesh of sin”. “Flesh of sin” was a Hebraism that simply described mortal “mankind” similar to the use of the Hebraism “flesh and blood”.
“Flesh and blood” is another Hebraism that denotes mankind in general. The phrase “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee” (of Matt 16:17) simply means “no person hath revealed it to thee.” When Paul points out that “…we fight not with flesh and blood only” (Eph 6:12) the next phrase clarifies the meaning ”the idolatrous rulers and other wicked men of the present age…”
Rabbinic Jews still use this hebraism nowadays. There are multiple examples in the Mishneh Torah that use this Hebraism. For examples (from Sefer Ahavah, Berachot) it is taught that “ One who sees a gentile wise man should recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has given from His wisdom to flesh and blood.” And upon seeing a Gentile king, one “…should recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has given from His glory to flesh and blood."
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Last edited:
