Greek influence on Pauline Theology

[lovemuffin]

So there's a train of thought I've been pondering for a few days which grew out of a random thought about Greek prepositions and their translation in 1 Corinthians 8:6. It basically goes like this

1. 1st century Jewish monotheism is distinctly non-metaphysical, being exemplified by all sorts of statements about God as a personality or in relation to Israel, i.e as the only king and absolute monarch, but not much about what God is beyond the idea that He created the universe and is the judge of all people. For more on this cf. this post. Because of the close analogy to monarchy, the Jewish God seems very anthropomorphic.

2. Paul seems to introduce a more metaphysical theology that seems influenced to me by Greek philosophy. This idea has been explored (for example: Paul and the Stoics) but I was particularly interested in several passages and their seeming relation to the concept of eternal return or recurrence. Some passages that especially jump out are 1 Cor 8:6, echoing Romans 11:36, The hymn of Colossians 1, and the speech at the Areopagus in Acts 17. I'll say more about it below.​

3. There's no doubt that Paul is also thoroughly Jewish in his thinking and in several verses warns against "philosophy", so this view requires qualification, but the conclusion I'm led to from examining the verses I mentioned in (2), as well as Paul's direct references to Greek philosophy, as well as his warnings, is that nonetheless Paul's conception of God, and his way of fitting his Christology into that understanding, is much less anthropomorphic, much more seemingly panentheistic than might be supposed, and that seems more appealing...​

So going back to (2), consider the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8:6. In context the chapter is an argument about why there is no theological issue with eating meat sacrificed to other gods, and the argument refers the reader back to what must have been an established sort of doctrinal formula expressed in verse 6:

ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ. (1 Cor 8:6)

But for us: one God, the father, out of whom all things, and we into him, and one lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things and we through him. (translation mine)
​

The Greek structure omits verbs that are usually present more explicitly in English, i.e "for us [there is] one God, from whom all things [exist]". It's not atypical for them to be implicit in Greek, but I left them out because what jumps out at me is the parallelism in the structure:

ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα και ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
ex hou ta panta kai hemeis eis auton
out of whom all things and we into him

δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
di' hou ta panta kai hemeis di' autou
through whom all things and we through him
​

Most English translations employ a secondary elliptical meaning of "eis", changing the "into" into "for", because "into" doesn't seem like very good English, and there are occasional uses of "eis" which seem to require such a translation, but the direct translation is interesting in terms of metaphysics and the possible relation to a more Greek philosophical view.

"ex" and "eis" are prepositions with literally opposite meanings, and their grammatical usage reflects that in a couple ways. "ex" is the prefix from which we get "ex-wife" and other usages. It very literally indicates a kind of motion of one thing out of another. "eis" indicates motion of one thing into another thing, distinguished from "en" which indicates something being statically inside something else.

Because of the parallelism, it seems intentional that the intended meaning is to emphasize that all things come out of God, and we return into God. The translation of "eis" as "for" seems more like a theological hesitation than a linguistic one. This movement out of God and back into God is then placed parallel to the role of Christ, through whom everything emerges out of God and through whom we also exist.

What is also interesting is that this usage is exactly what we also find in Romans 11, where it is normally translated more directly:

ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Rom 11:36)
for from him and through him and into him are all things
​

Then there is also Acts 17:28, which is probably a reference to Epimenides of Crete (cf. wikipedia): "For in him we live and move and have our being"

The "through him" attributed to Christ is interesting, metaphysically, in light of the hymn of Colossians 1:

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν

For in him all things were created
in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible
whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities
all things were created through him and to him
and he is before all things and all things in him are made to stand together
​

Again what seems to be implied, metaphysically, is a more panentheistic view, where not only does God create the world, as in traditional Judaism, but that this creation exists and is sustained by that same Divinity which is also immanent in the world.

This is already long enough, so I'm cutting this off here. There are of course possible objections to some of this which I alluded to in (3) but haven't addressed, but I think it's interesting. Sorry this is so long, thoughts are welcome. I'm looking at you @Windwalker, @Orbit, and @sojourner

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

So there's a train of thought I've been pondering for a few days which grew out of a random thought about Greek prepositions and their translation in 1 Corinthians 8:6. It basically goes like this

1. 1st century Jewish monotheism is distinctly non-metaphysical, being exemplified by all sorts of statements about God as a personality or in relation to Israel, i.e as the only king and absolute monarch, but not much about what God is beyond the idea that He created the universe and is the judge of all people. For more on this cf. this post. Because of the close analogy to monarchy, the Jewish God seems very anthropomorphic.

2. Paul seems to introduce a more metaphysical theology that seems influenced to me by Greek philosophy. This idea has been explored (for example: Paul and the Stoics) but I was particularly interested in several passages and their seeming relation to the concept of eternal return or recurrence. Some passages that especially jump out are 1 Cor 8:6, echoing Romans 11:36, The hymn of Colossians 1, and the speech at the Areopagus in Acts 17. I'll say more about it below.​

3. There's no doubt that Paul is also thoroughly Jewish in his thinking and in several verses warns against "philosophy", so this view requires qualification, but the conclusion I'm led to from examining the verses I mentioned in (2), as well as Paul's direct references to Greek philosophy, as well as his warnings, is that nonetheless Paul's conception of God, and his way of fitting his Christology into that understanding, is much less anthropomorphic, much more seemingly panentheistic than might be supposed, and that seems more appealing...​

So going back to (2), consider the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8:6. In context the chapter is an argument about why there is no theological issue with eating meat sacrificed to other gods, and the argument refers the reader back to what must have been an established sort of doctrinal formula expressed in verse 6:

ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ. (1 Cor 8:6)

But for us: one God, the father, out of whom all things, and we into him, and one lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things and we through him. (translation mine)
​

The Greek structure omits verbs that are usually present more explicitly in English, i.e "for us [there is] one God, from whom all things [exist]". It's not atypical for them to be implicit in Greek, but I left them out because what jumps out at me is the parallelism in the structure:

ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα και ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
ex hou ta panta kai hemeis eis auton
out of whom all things and we into him

δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
di' hou ta panta kai hemeis di' autou
through whom all things and we through him
​

Most English translations employ a secondary elliptical meaning of "eis", changing the "into" into "for", because "into" doesn't seem like very good English, and there are occasional uses of "eis" which seem to require such a translation, but the direct translation is interesting in terms of metaphysics and the possible relation to a more Greek philosophical view.

"ex" and "eis" are prepositions with literally opposite meanings, and their grammatical usage reflects that in a couple ways. "ex" is the prefix from which we get "ex-wife" and other usages. It very literally indicates a kind of motion of one thing out of another. "eis" indicates motion of one thing into another thing, distinguished from "en" which indicates something being statically inside something else.

Because of the parallelism, it seems intentional that the intended meaning is to emphasize that all things come out of God, and we return into God. The translation of "eis" as "for" seems more like a theological hesitation than a linguistic one. This movement out of God and back into God is then placed parallel to the role of Christ, through whom everything emerges out of God and through whom we also exist.

What is also interesting is that this usage is exactly what we also find in Romans 11, where it is normally translated more directly:

ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Rom 11:36)
for from him and through him and into him are all things
​

Then there is also Acts 17:28, which is probably a reference to Epimenides of Crete (cf. wikipedia): "For in him we live and move and have our being"

The "through him" attributed to Christ is interesting, metaphysically, in light of the hymn of Colossians 1:

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν

For in him all things were created
in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible
whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities
all things were created through him and to him
and he is before all things and all things in him are made to stand together
​

Again what seems to be implied, metaphysically, is a more panentheistic view, where not only does God create the world, as in traditional Judaism, but that this creation exists and is sustained by that same Divinity which is also immanent in the world.

This is already long enough, so I'm cutting this off here. There are of course possible objections to some of this which I alluded to in (3) but haven't addressed, but I think it's interesting. Sorry this is so long, thoughts are welcome. I'm looking at you @Windwalker, @Orbit, and @sojourner

Didnt Paul say himself that he was familiar with the philosophical scriptures (of the greeks)? And anyway it is also said that he "became all to all men" greek for the greeks, jewish for the jews in order to save but a few.

 

[Windwalker]

So there's a train of thought I've been pondering for a few days which grew out of a random thought about Greek prepositions and their translation in 1 Corinthians 8:6. It basically goes like this

1. 1st century Jewish monotheism is distinctly non-metaphysical, being exemplified by all sorts of statements about God as a personality or in relation to Israel, i.e as the only king and absolute monarch, but not much about what God is beyond the idea that He created the universe and is the judge of all people. For more on this cf. this post. Because of the close analogy to monarchy, the Jewish God seems very anthropomorphic.

2. Paul seems to introduce a more metaphysical theology that seems influenced to me by Greek philosophy. This idea has been explored (for example: Paul and the Stoics) but I was particularly interested in several passages and their seeming relation to the concept of eternal return or recurrence. Some passages that especially jump out are 1 Cor 8:6, echoing Romans 11:36, The hymn of Colossians 1, and the speech at the Areopagus in Acts 17. I'll say more about it below.​

3. There's no doubt that Paul is also thoroughly Jewish in his thinking and in several verses warns against "philosophy", so this view requires qualification, but the conclusion I'm led to from examining the verses I mentioned in (2), as well as Paul's direct references to Greek philosophy, as well as his warnings, is that nonetheless Paul's conception of God, and his way of fitting his Christology into that understanding, is much less anthropomorphic, much more seemingly panentheistic than might be supposed, and that seems more appealing...​

I very much appreciate the insights you offer here. It raises thoughts and ideas I'd like to run by you. As you point out that 1st century Judaism is distinctly non-metaphysical, being far more mythical and anthropomorphic, it seems this is consistent with much more traditional theistic understandings of God present even today within Christianity, "kicking Christ upstairs", as Alan Watts put it. There is a distinctly different Christ in Paul's language, that of the "Cosmic Christ", the more metaphysical view of Christ as agent of creation, upholder of all things, and so forth as you point out in the language he uses which clearly speak in more Panentheistic language.

What you bring up made me think right away of Philo of Alexandria, who as a Hellenic Jew took the traditional God of Israel and clearly spoke of him in metaphysical language. Most notably the nature and role of Logos.

"Now it is an especial attribute of God to create, and this faculty it is impious to ascribe to any created being" (Cher. 77). The expression of this act of God, which is at the same time his thinking, is his Logos (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283). Though God is hidden, his reality is made manifest by the Logos that is God's image (Somn. 1.239; Conf. 147-148) and by the sensible universe, which in turn is the image of the Logos, that is "the archetypal model, the idea of ideas"
​

(Source) I hear in Paul from what you pointed out a similar, if not directly influenced in his approach to thinking about and imagining Jesus as this Cosmic Christ, is very much in line with the sort of metaphysics of Philo. Certainly the author of Gospel John drew from Philo's Logos concept at applied it to Jesus. So Paul, being in Asia Minor certainly was exposed to these things which helped shape his language about Christ.

Add to this as well that Paul certainly had mystical experience as his writings explicitly state on occasion as well as the whole Damascus Road experience which is not an uncommon mystical experience (I've had something quite notably similar, as many have). Having such mystical, or transcendent experiences as these leaves one searching for language to hook these on, to translate them into words and such metaphysical language becomes the language of choice as it points to the transcendent. Of course the ideas are not mere repetition of concepts at that point, but become tailored to express in the mystic's own words how he interprets them within those frameworks. So it seems to me that Paul's Cosmic Christ is a result of both his own mystical experience and his exposure to the metaphysical language of those like Philo, taking his experience of Jesus and hanging on these models of the divine, as it were.

Again what seems to be implied, metaphysically, is a more panentheistic view, where not only does God create the world, as in traditional Judaism, but that this creation exists and is sustained by that same Divinity which is also immanent in the world.

To tie this into a related discussion about the Trinity, it is my belief that the formulation of the Trinity is drawn from what is embedded within Paul's thoughts about Christ, as well certainly from the Gospel of John which is clearly a metaphysical Christ drawing directly from Philo's Logos in its opening chapter, is at its heart originally a Panentheistic view of God, not a traditional theistic view.

Like anything mystical or metaphysical in the hands of those without that certain perspective that mystical experience blows open what could only be seen by few previously with much effort "through a glass darkly", such expressions get squashed down, flattened into the familiar, which in the case of the Trinity would become a form of traditional Theism. The inherent dynamism of the Trinity, becomes a static, flat heavenly "being" of a triune nature. The nondual nature of God becomes a dualistic "entity" in heaven, out there, separate from us, save only for supernatural moments it punches a hole through space and time into our sphere.

I'll continue to digest some thoughts on this and come back around to it later, but by all means feel free to offer your thoughts to my points, challenges, or whatever. It's all very good material to ponder.

 

[metis]

I tend to believe that Jesus was likely affected by this Hellenization, which was quite strong in northern Israel, especially along the coast. It tended to be less parochial overall plus more esoteric and mystic.

 

[lovemuffin]

What you bring up made me think right away of Philo of Alexandria

Absolutely. I had forgotten that he was so closely contemporaneous. For some reason I was putting him in the 2nd century. But the comparison is very clear I think, especially in contrast to the older style of monotheistic expression.

I suppose, to me the influence of Hellenic culture and philosophy is quite obvious, so my motivation for making the thread wasn't so much because I thought the question was in doubt, but because I hadn't read that particular verse (1 Cor 8:6) in that way before and it seemed interesting. In any case, I wanted to at least outline the argument for the Greek influence, albeit insufficiently. I don't really doubt the conclusion at all, but it is likely controversial among more conservative Christians and so deserves some kind of argument. And that's what's interesting to me: that modern western Christianity seems to have adopted the more anthropomorphic characterizations of the O.T. or of the earlier 2nd temple period over the more metaphysical later expressions, even when these are found in the N.T. This has not always been the case in the history of Christianity. That's one reason I'm interested in the writings of eastern Christians of antiquity. Their theology is mystical and metaphysical in a way that is likely surprising to most American Christians.

The more practical implications to me have to do with the ways in which the more anthropomorphic theology and associated dogmatic tendencies are at odds with modern science and philosophy. I think so many Christians think that their are only two options: cling to the strongly mythic and anthropomorphic theology with its attendant worldview, which has become unbelievable to so many, or else adopt the metaphysical naturalism and strong atheism which is seen as its only counterpart. But this seems like a false dichotomy, and a less than useful one. Of course, it's not logically necessary to prove some historical basis for a less anthropomorphic theology in order for such a theology to be possible in Christianity, but I hope that understanding the history of the religion better, and that these themes are prevalent from the beginning, might encourage some that they can let go of untenable theological ideas without abandoning what is worth preserving in the Christian worldview.

 

[lovemuffin]

To tie this into a related discussion about the Trinity, it is my belief that the formulation of the Trinity is drawn from what is embedded within Paul's thoughts about Christ, as well certainly from the Gospel of John which is clearly a metaphysical Christ drawing directly from Philo's Logos in its opening chapter, is at its heart originally a Panentheistic view of God, not a traditional theistic view.

I'm not sure if you've seen it, but I wrote a very long collection of posts on the formulation of the Trinity, which develops a bit of this: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-trinity-in-the-eastern-christian-tradition.174432/

 

[Orbit]

The thing that struck me about the verse you are writing about @well named , is our conversation about how specific the Greek word is for "into". You told me it doesn't mean "in", because there is another word for that, but refers specifically to being inside of, like you would walk into a house. That opens up a very panentheistic interpretation of the verse. We "go out" from God, and we return "into" God. This suggests a very different theology than one on which God is the distant father and judge. It suggests a mystic, panentheistic view of God that is quite exciting to me. (Also, paging @Brickjectivity to thread, I think you'd be interested).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So going back to (2), consider the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8:6. In context the chapter is an argument about why there is no theological issue with eating meat sacrificed to other gods, and the argument refers the reader back to what must have been an established sort of doctrinal formula expressed in verse 6:

ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ. (1 Cor 8:6)

But for us: one God, the father, out of whom all things, and we into him, and one lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things and we through him. (translation mine)
​

The Greek structure omits verbs that are usually present more explicitly in English, i.e "for us [there is] one God, from whom all things [exist]". It's not atypical for them to be implicit in Greek, but I left them out because what jumps out at me is the parallelism in the structure:

ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα και ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
ex hou ta panta kai hemeis eis auton
out of whom all things and we into him

δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
di' hou ta panta kai hemeis di' autou
through whom all things and we through him
​

Your rendering obscures the parallelism " εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ...καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός" together with their respective relative clauses.

Most English translations employ a secondary elliptical meaning of "eis", changing the "into" into "for", because "into" doesn't seem like very good English, and there are occasional uses of "eis" which seem to require such a translation, but the direct translation is interesting in terms of metaphysics and the possible relation to a more Greek philosophical view.

Short of particles, prepositions are the most problematic units of language in Greek. Luckily, abstractions from literal spatial meanings is cross-linguistic and there exists an entire framework to help understand why "for" is more appropriate here or why John's prologue isn't translated "in the beginning was the word, and the word was towards him..."

I would suggest
Luraghi, S. (2003). On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek (Studies in Language Companion Series). John Benjamins.
and (secondarily)
Hewson, J., & Bubenik, V. (2006). From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Vol. 280). John Benjamins.

Put simply, 'literally" here goes out the window. Prepositions rarely actually literally construe spatial relations in that 1) either they don't at all ("for" lacks the possibility of such a relation) or they ascribe to entities motion, agency, or other relevant properties relating to space that they cannot possess. Such extensions of basic spatial terms are variously called Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs), Frames, Conceptual Metaphors, etc. They are part of the more general cognitive processes that fall under embodiment (although even linguistics and cognitive scientists who don't subscribe to embodiment have in various ways incorporated aspects of the framework into their theories of language and cognition).

 

[lovemuffin]

Your rendering obscures the parallelism " εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ...καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός" together with their respective relative clauses.

Agreed, but that's mostly because I was wanting to talk about the ex...eis...dia.

Short of particles, prepositions are the most problematic units of language in Greek. Luckily, abstractions from literal spatial meanings is cross-linguistic and there exists an entire framework to help understand why "for" is more appropriate here or why John's prologue isn't translated "in the beginning was the word, and the word was towards him..."

I would suggest
Luraghi, S. (2003). On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek (Studies in Language Companion Series). John Benjamins.
and (secondarily)
Hewson, J., & Bubenik, V. (2006). From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Vol. 280). John Benjamins.

Put simply, 'literally" here goes out the window. Prepositions rarely actually literally construe spatial relations in that 1) either they don't at all ("for" lacks the possibility of such a relation) or they ascribe to entities motion, agency, or other relevant properties relating to space that they cannot possess. Such extensions of basic spatial terms are variously called Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs), Frames, Conceptual Metaphors, etc. They are part of the more general cognitive processes that fall under embodiment (although even linguistics and cognitive scientists who don't subscribe to embodiment have in various ways incorporated aspects of the framework into their theories of language and cognition).

Thank you very much for your response, the references, and the correction. I take your point and I'm sure you're correct that I'm giving insufficient attention to the ways in which spatial metaphors are used for expressing things that aren't intended to be directly spatial. I know your knowledge of Greek is greater than mine, and I'm unprepared to argue the point further, but I'm curious whether you think it's possible in some nuanced way that Paul does also intend the spatial metaphor of "into"? Even if "for" is a better translation of a primary meaning? What is your opinion of the general topic? Do you think the way Paul writes about God reflects a more Greek way of thinking than earlier Jewish writing?

 

[Windwalker]

Short of particles, prepositions are the most problematic units of language in Greek. Luckily, abstractions from literal spatial meanings is cross-linguistic and there exists an entire framework to help understand why "for" is more appropriate here or why John's prologue isn't translated "in the beginning was the word, and the word was towards him..."

I hardly qualify as someone to speak to the nuances of Greek, but I know I have read that pros in the second clause of John 1:1, does suggest "towards", in the sense of an intimate, "face to face" relationship. So it would seem the spacial meaning to suggest the intimacy of the relationship between Logos and God would seem appropriate. In other words Logos "with" God is really more about the type of relationship. Thoughts?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I hardly qualify as someone to speak to the nuances of Greek, but I know I have read that pros in the second clause of John 1:1, does suggest "towards", in the sense of an intimate, "face to face" relationship. So it would seem the spacial meaning to suggest the intimacy of the relationship between Logos and God would seem appropriate. In other words Logos "with" God is really more about the type of relationship. Thoughts?

I would absolutely agree: it suggests "towards" (although this use of pros in Koine was more common because of the general changes from Classical to Hellenistic Greek). But that is sort of my point: the spatial meaning is abstracted and translated into metaphor (intimacy). Hence a study of strict spatial meanings without an appreciation of the general cognitive mechanisms underlying such abstractions as well as their specific instantiations in a particular language is going to run into problems quite quickly.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you think the way Paul writes about God reflects a more Greek way of thinking than earlier Jewish writing?

A while ago I was sure he did. Then I was convinced he didn't. Then I thought that he probably did but with various caveats. That was years ago. Now I'm not sure how much meaning the question has. I don't mean it's not an important question, but rather that it requires so many demarcations (as in the demarcating the little known "schools" Josephus refers to from one another and all of them from the more popular understanding of Judaism in the 2nd temple period, itself a good but still somewhat problematic demarcation) and difficult comparisons (Jewish texts written in Greek compared with one another and to those of the same period written in Aramaic or Hebrew as well as with non-Jewish Hellenistic Greek) while trying to account for the massive influence of Hellenization and Romanization in general that I am unsure if it is possible to approach the question in a "good" (defensible? justifiable?) way.
In short, I don't know, but I am glad people such as yourself are still seeking answers.

 

[Windwalker]

A while ago I was sure he did. Then I was convinced he didn't. Then I thought that he probably did but with various caveats. That was years ago. Now I'm not sure how much meaning the question has. I don't mean it's not an important question, but rather that it requires so many demarcations (as in the demarcating the little known "schools" Josephus refers to from one another and all of them from the more popular understanding of Judaism in the 2nd temple period, itself a good but still somewhat problematic demarcation) and difficult comparisons (Jewish texts written in Greek compared with one another and to those of the same period written in Aramaic or Hebrew as well as with non-Jewish Hellenistic Greek) while trying to account for the massive influence of Hellenization and Romanization in general that I am unsure if it is possible to approach the question in a "good" (defensible? justifiable?) way.

The variable that I think goes towards the Hellenization of Paul's views, the metaphysical versus the more traditional monotheism which Well Named makes a distinction between, is the social and cultural factor. Views of God, or views of Jesus, do not exist in a vacuum. Even if one is part of a faith tradition, such as Paul was, it will naturally take on the flavor of the surrounding culture in some fashion, unless they specifically chose to separate themselves totally into completely isolated, self-sustaining communities (which is what the OT leaders had expressed as their ideal in the types of laws their God handed them). In cosmopolitan settings, the religion will be reimagined, and reinterpreted by those of that lineage for themselves as a part of that evolving culture.

Add to this the personal experience of certain key individuals within these cultural and social shifts. Take Paul in this case born in Asia Minor, an active part of the Jewish community, from the sounds of it very zealous in his approach to his religion, had to be right, correct those who were wrong as his mission for God to please him, busy trying to bring others to his religion, etc. In other words he was very driven as part of his search for himself in the object of God and his religion.

In his actions of persecuting those whom he saw as deviating from the "prescribed way" (he was functioning like our modern-day fundamentalists do as self-proclaimed heretic-hunters or demonslayers), what was in his own heart began to bother him in seeing these people who identified with the Jesus movement that they were not these demons his fundamentalist mind was trying to make them into. So this led to an existential crisis for him, a deep spiritual and ethical conflict he was carrying around with him, until one day while on his trip to arrest some more, he had an "ah hah" moment on the road to Damascus and "saw the light", literally as well as figuratively.

His mission was to please God, to bring people into following God, and now what he saw before as error, he allowed for himself to see as more effective in doing the same thing! All he needs to do is to just reinterpret and reimagine the story line to support it, and in order to evolve it to the culture he was part of, to put it into the their language and terms in order to now bring yet even more people into his religious experience as he was before. The Christian way made it easier to serve God, and hence more converts.

So here is a man who just had a not-uncommon, yet profound subtle-level mystical experience which took the form of this Jesus figure he was fighting against that allowed him to make a change in his life to relieve this existential crisis that had been brewing inside him creating deep tension. But he was still the same basic person with the same basic drives and personality, yet now expanded and refocused with a new inspired mission.

Paul admits he is all things to all people, to the Greek a Greek, to the Jew a Jew. He has no problem fitting his vision of God into the language of others, and what you see in his epistles is very much a Cosmic Christ, a metaphysical, mystery religion form of the divine, tied into his own lineage of Jewish history. He very much reinterprets Genesis to fit his image of Christ within the context of his culture in Asia Minor. The Jewish Christian in Jerusalem however would reinterpret their own scriptures to make Jesus fit into context of their culture, and the result would be a more "Jewish Jesus", as opposed to the Cosmic Christ of the Asia Minor Jesus.

If we step back from a micro-analysis of comparative texts and drop the whole thing into a social and cultural contexts, driven by individuals with personal mystical visions, or by just dynamic social movements themselves, you should see similar patterns emerge that occur again and again everywhere, with any system of belief or practices. I think the question would be, why wouldn't it look like its surrounding culture? In my case, I'm pretty convinced by this alone, but the exact nature of the shape and form things take of course requires a more detailed analysis.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The variable that I think goes towards the Hellenization of Paul's views

...is that he wrote (or dictated) in Greek.

Views of God, or views of Jesus, do not exist in a vacuum.

Absolutely true.

Add to this the personal experience of certain key individuals within these cultural and social shifts. Take Paul in this case born in Asia Minor, an active part of the Jewish community, from the sounds of it very zealous in his approach to his religion, had to be right, correct those who were wrong as his mission for God to please him, busy trying to bring others to his religion, etc. In other words he was very driven as part of his search for himself in the object of God and his religion. In his actions of persecuting those whom he saw as deviating from the "prescribed way" (he was functioning like our modern-day fundamentalists do as self-proclaimed heretic-hunters or demonslayers), what was in his own heart began to bother him in seeing these people who identified with the Jesus movement that they were not these demons his fundamentalist mind was trying to make them into. So this led to an existential crisis for him, a deep spiritual and ethical conflict he was carrying around with him, until one day while on his trip to arrest some more, he had an "ah hah" moment on the road to Damascus and "saw the light", literally as well as figuratively.

Well put.

The Christian way made it easier to serve God, and hence more converts.

But Judaism wasn't concerned with conversion, an the vast majority of Jews (including "Hellenized" Jews) neither sought to convert nor held beliefs contrary to the spectrum of those we categorize as pre-Rabbinic or Rabbinic Judaism.

So here is a man who just had a not-uncommon, yet profound subtle-level mystical experience which took the form of this Jesus figure he was fighting against that allowed him to make a change in his life to relieve this existential crisis that had been brewing inside him creating deep tension. But he was still the same basic person with the same basic drives and personality, yet now expanded and refocused with a new inspired mission.

Paul admits he is all things to all people, to the Greek a Greek, to the Jew a Jew.

But there was no word for "Jew" or "Jewish" or "Hebrew" in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin. The terms translated as such refer to ethnicity (which meant geographic origins), language, or some similar categorization that falls short of religious identity.

He has no problem fitting his vision of God into the language of others

He CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY distinguishes between the tradition he has received from others concerning divorce and that which is his own vision.

and what you see in his epistles is very much a Cosmic Christ, a metaphysical, mystery religion form

From my critique of Earl Doherty:
"The questionable claim of a “heavenly source”

Even more curious is his own analysis of Paul’s language. He claims that it “points to a heavenly source” and to support this claim cites 1 Cor. 7:25. He tells us Paul’s words indicate “a general category of things [he] is accustomed to possessing for himself, not as part of a wider community knowledge or inheritance from tradition.” How, I wonder, does Paul’s statement that a particular direction comes from him, not the Lord, indicate some “heavenly source” unless one assumes already that there was no earthly Jesus? There is nothing within Paul’s language to indicate a heavenly source, and in fact if one looks at 1 Cor. 7 in full such an interpretation is problematic. Earlier, in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul explicitly separates his instruction from that of the Lord: tois de gegamekkosin paragello, ouk ego alla ho kurios…/”to the unmarried I command, or rather not I, but the Lord…” Paul’s assertion that this prohibition of divorce is from Jesus is also echoed in Q and Mark. Almost immediately following this, however, Paul states (1 Cor. 7:12), tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kurios…/”to the rest I say, not the Lord,…” He goes out of his way to indicate that the first part is a teaching from Jesus Christ, as he does in the line quoted by Doherty (where he states he has no command from the Lord). On the assumption that there was no earthly Jesus, these lines by necessity are from some “divine revelation”. Of course, if Paul received “divine revelations” one wonders why he would ever need to indicate that an instruction or command was his own, not the Lord’s. After all, if he receives divine instructions, and it is understood by his audience that he does, why would they give credence to his own thoughts on some matter when he makes it clear he didn’t receive any divine instruction? Why didn’t he? It’s rather odd that Paul has a divine decree concerning divorce, one that is rather general, but when it comes to how followers of Christ should deal with unbelieving spouses, divine inspiration dries up. This makes perfect sense if Paul is actually passing on the same teaching recorded in the gospels and coming from an earthly Jesus, who did not have to deal with issues which occurred in the early church, but is harder to explain if all teachings of Jesus are divine inspirations."

"Paul’s visit(s) to Jerusalem and what likely took place

The first is his assertion in The Jesus Puzzle that there was not “much opportunity in evidence for him [Paul] to have acquired details about Jesus’ life”. Doherty then references Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. However, there are problems with Doherty’s description here. First, he states that “Paul went to Jerusalem exactly once”. However, it is unclear what his basis is for this claim. In the very letter Doherty references (Galatians), Paul mentions (Gal. 2.1) a second trip. Nor is it clear that the references to a trip to Jerusalem in (for example) Romans corresponds with either of the two trips mentioned in Galatians. Then there is Doherty’s description of Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter. He states that “[a]ll he did at that time, so he says (1:18) was ‘get to know Peter’ and see James.” This is at the very least somewhat misleading. First, there is the length of the stay: 15 days. As C. H. Dodd put it so long ago, we can safely assume that “they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” The only clue (other than the length of the visit) for what took place is the infinitive Paul uses to describe his action during the visit: historesai. This word, whence comes our English “history”, was forever changed by the work of Herodotus, who began his work with a nominalized version historia ,meaning (at that time) “inquiry” or “investigation.” However, Herodotus’ work began a new genre- that of historiography. Greek the verb historiagraphein means “to write history”. There are several Greek words Paul could have used here, which are less formal and far more common (e.g., gignoskein), but he used one found nowhere else in the N.T. and rarely in Greek literature at all. It is commonly found within the works of historians, from Herodotus to Diogenes Laertius (Plutarch uses it frequently), but is almost completely absent from drama or non-technical texts. In other words, for Paul to use this word, there is probably something special about his visit, at least more than a simple “get to know” Peter. A better translation would probably be “inquire”, and indeed most analyses of the word as used in Galatians (for references, see the BDAG) argue that the word means something like “get information from” rather than “get to know.” And that would better explain the length of the stay"

I think the question would be, why wouldn't it look like its surrounding culture?

An excellent question, but the question "what was the surrounding culture" was heavily debated until fairly recently and recently most have agreed the influence of Hellenism was minimal.

 

[Windwalker]

But Judaism wasn't concerned with conversion, an the vast majority of Jews (including "Hellenized" Jews) neither sought to convert nor held beliefs contrary to the spectrum of those we categorize as pre-Rabbinic or Rabbinic Judaism.

Was it true that the Jewish religion was considered popular or attractive to Gentiles, and that the problem for many to become proselytes was things like circumcision, strict dietary laws, so forth? Though Paul may in fact not have actively being evangelizing Gentiles to convert to the Jewish religion, it would seem he did have an interest in their conversion since he was so against those who were compromising what he understood as the right way. In other words, Paul had the same interest to seeing people come to God as the Christians did, but could not at the time tolerate the loose "wide-gate" approach they were teaching. He was after all not stepping outside of his religion to persecute another religion, but those within Judaism who followed Jesus. His later challenge as a Christian himself against the so-called "Judaizers" who were insisting on making converts get circumcised seems reflective of his own reversal on the matter. The end result is it made it "easier" to come to the God of Israel "through Christ", rather than by the law.

But there was no word for "Jew" or "Jewish" or "Hebrew" in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin. The terms translated as such refer to ethnicity (which meant geographic origins), language, or some similar categorization that falls short of religious identity.

That's good information. But isn't identifying someone's region and ethnicity to suggest a whole gamut of values and worldviews including religious perspectives? So When Paul says when he speaks as a Jew, or as a Greek, doesn't it suggest he means he translates the world into their "language", by which I mean how the set of eyes through which they understand and interpret the world?

He CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY distinguishes between the tradition he has received from others concerning divorce and that which is his own vision.

I was concerned my use of his vision might cause confusion. What I meant to suggest didn't have to do with the distinctions between what he considered revelation versus his on points of view, or 'vision'. By vision I meant the entire baseline shift in his whole worldview. He, like anyone of us, took his vision of reality, of truth, and reinterpreted things and reimagined the story lines to fit and support that new vision. I mean it in the sense of a visionary.

From my critique of Earl Doherty:
"The questionable claim of a “heavenly source”

Even more curious is his own analysis of Paul’s language. He claims that it “points to a heavenly source” and to support this claim cites 1 Cor. 7:25. He tells us Paul’s words indicate “a general category of things [he] is accustomed to possessing for himself, not as part of a wider community knowledge or inheritance from tradition.” How, I wonder, does Paul’s statement that a particular direction comes from him, not the Lord, indicate some “heavenly source” unless one assumes already that there was no earthly Jesus? There is nothing within Paul’s language to indicate a heavenly source, and in fact if one looks at 1 Cor. 7 in full such an interpretation is problematic. Earlier, in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul explicitly separates his instruction from that of the Lord: tois de gegamekkosin paragello, ouk ego alla ho kurios…/”to the unmarried I command, or rather not I, but the Lord…” Paul’s assertion that this prohibition of divorce is from Jesus is also echoed in Q and Mark. Almost immediately following this, however, Paul states (1 Cor. 7:12), tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kurios…/”to the rest I say, not the Lord,…” He goes out of his way to indicate that the first part is a teaching from Jesus Christ, as he does in the line quoted by Doherty (where he states he has no command from the Lord). On the assumption that there was no earthly Jesus, these lines by necessity are from some “divine revelation”. Of course, if Paul received “divine revelations” one wonders why he would ever need to indicate that an instruction or command was his own, not the Lord’s. After all, if he receives divine instructions, and it is understood by his audience that he does, why would they give credence to his own thoughts on some matter when he makes it clear he didn’t receive any divine instruction? Why didn’t he? It’s rather odd that Paul has a divine decree concerning divorce, one that is rather general, but when it comes to how followers of Christ should deal with unbelieving spouses, divine inspiration dries up. This makes perfect sense if Paul is actually passing on the same teaching recorded in the gospels and coming from an earthly Jesus, who did not have to deal with issues which occurred in the early church, but is harder to explain if all teachings of Jesus are divine inspirations."

"Paul’s visit(s) to Jerusalem and what likely took place

The first is his assertion in The Jesus Puzzle that there was not “much opportunity in evidence for him [Paul] to have acquired details about Jesus’ life”. Doherty then references Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. However, there are problems with Doherty’s description here. First, he states that “Paul went to Jerusalem exactly once”. However, it is unclear what his basis is for this claim. In the very letter Doherty references (Galatians), Paul mentions (Gal. 2.1) a second trip. Nor is it clear that the references to a trip to Jerusalem in (for example) Romans corresponds with either of the two trips mentioned in Galatians. Then there is Doherty’s description of Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter. He states that “[a]ll he did at that time, so he says (1:18) was ‘get to know Peter’ and see James.” This is at the very least somewhat misleading. First, there is the length of the stay: 15 days. As C. H. Dodd put it so long ago, we can safely assume that “they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” The only clue (other than the length of the visit) for what took place is the infinitive Paul uses to describe his action during the visit: historesai. This word, whence comes our English “history”, was forever changed by the work of Herodotus, who began his work with a nominalized version historia ,meaning (at that time) “inquiry” or “investigation.” However, Herodotus’ work began a new genre- that of historiography. Greek the verb historiagraphein means “to write history”. There are several Greek words Paul could have used here, which are less formal and far more common (e.g., gignoskein), but he used one found nowhere else in the N.T. and rarely in Greek literature at all. It is commonly found within the works of historians, from Herodotus to Diogenes Laertius (Plutarch uses it frequently), but is almost completely absent from drama or non-technical texts. In other words, for Paul to use this word, there is probably something special about his visit, at least more than a simple “get to know” Peter. A better translation would probably be “inquire”, and indeed most analyses of the word as used in Galatians (for references, see the BDAG) argue that the word means something like “get information from” rather than “get to know.” And that would better explain the length of the stay"

When I spoke of the Cosmic Christ that was not at all to suggest Earl Doherty's unique ideas of Christ as a non-historical, archetypal sort of being he purports. I'm not that impressed by him either. I was talking more of the much more metaphysical language Paul imagines Jesus in, his eternal divine nature, and so forth. He is much more that Cosmic being, than the promised delivery of Israel like a Moses or Elijah. It's other authors and scholars I draw from in that terminology.

An excellent question, but the question "what was the surrounding culture" was heavily debated until fairly recently and recently most have agreed the influence of Hellenism was minimal.

A good part of me is skeptical of this on principle. Even if you look at American religions, such a fundamentalism, even though it strives to make itself separate from culture and "preserve" its beliefs and values, in fact surrounding culture influences how internally they think. It doesn't mean they conform to culture outside themselves, but that who they are internally is directly shaped in response to the culture outside themselves. It's unavoidable. For instance, fundamentalism in American Christianity is exactly what it is because of Modernity. In fact, all it's apologetics, its modes of thinking, even though claiming to be "biblical" are in fact modernistic, trying to make mythology scientific truths, and the like.

 

[Unification]

Paul's Christ was definitely inner, metaphysical, a higher altered/higher aware state of conscious mind. A personal resurrection/revival within. Not a literal guy or deity, or historical. This altered mind allows one to see/discern the spiritual/inner symbolism of the texts.

Paul wasn't dependent on any teachings or dogma of man, but only the teaching of the inner light revealed within that unlocks hidden wisdom, knowledge, and the unused ram/memory of the white horse/hippocampus horns/hippocampi of the brain.

Inner Christening of gnosis/direct experience. The Christ as the cerebrospinal fluid substance/water/plasma/oil different type of light(energy) being revealed within through the bloodstream in the body that purifies and transcends/alters the brain/mind and it's nature radically. Like consciousness derives from this Christ light/energy within the blood of the human body.

A sense that the cosmos (Father) is duplicated within the human(inner Christ). What's inner is outer. Red blood cell torus and unified field torus.

When Paul was taken to the "third heaven," it was referring to a higher/tranced state of conscious within.

The church as the physical human body composed of blood, and the Christ light/energy that needs unlocked/released/resurrected within.
One living in unity/harmonious to natural "higher" law. An inner marriage of the woman(subconscious mind) with the man(consciousmind) into one unity of a "higher" consciousness/awareness. Separated from mother/mater and the two minds becoming one flesh(mind.)

Is-female/subconscious mind
Ra-male/conscious mind
El-Elohim

Paul was "separated" from his mother's/mater's womb.

The temple(mind) torn in two, same as the parting of the red(blood) sea(consciousness).

The tabernacle(brain) of God(higher unified consciousness) has three courts, or three mother's/maters.

Outer-duramater.
Veil/divider/separater-arachnoid mater.
Inner/holy of holies/third heaven- pia mater.

The veil removed from the woman(subconscious mind). . now it's easier to see where mans institution of literal outward marriage comes from.

When one divorces their wife(subconscious mind), it is separation of the one/whole/holy mind back into duality/two minds. At least according to inner/spiritual text.

Marriage in text is essentially also the joining/bonding of male(positive) and female(negative) ions within the brain/mind/body...that are joined at equilibrium, balance, singularity, unity.

 

[Unification]

So there's a train of thought I've been pondering for a few days which grew out of a random thought about Greek prepositions and their translation in 1 Corinthians 8:6. It basically goes like this

1. 1st century Jewish monotheism is distinctly non-metaphysical, being exemplified by all sorts of statements about God as a personality or in relation to Israel, i.e as the only king and absolute monarch, but not much about what God is beyond the idea that He created the universe and is the judge of all people. For more on this cf. this post. Because of the close analogy to monarchy, the Jewish God seems very anthropomorphic.

2. Paul seems to introduce a more metaphysical theology that seems influenced to me by Greek philosophy. This idea has been explored (for example: Paul and the Stoics) but I was particularly interested in several passages and their seeming relation to the concept of eternal return or recurrence. Some passages that especially jump out are 1 Cor 8:6, echoing Romans 11:36, The hymn of Colossians 1, and the speech at the Areopagus in Acts 17. I'll say more about it below.​

3. There's no doubt that Paul is also thoroughly Jewish in his thinking and in several verses warns against "philosophy", so this view requires qualification, but the conclusion I'm led to from examining the verses I mentioned in (2), as well as Paul's direct references to Greek philosophy, as well as his warnings, is that nonetheless Paul's conception of God, and his way of fitting his Christology into that understanding, is much less anthropomorphic, much more seemingly panentheistic than might be supposed, and that seems more appealing...​

So going back to (2), consider the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8:6. In context the chapter is an argument about why there is no theological issue with eating meat sacrificed to other gods, and the argument refers the reader back to what must have been an established sort of doctrinal formula expressed in verse 6:

ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ. (1 Cor 8:6)

But for us: one God, the father, out of whom all things, and we into him, and one lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things and we through him. (translation mine)
​

The Greek structure omits verbs that are usually present more explicitly in English, i.e "for us [there is] one God, from whom all things [exist]". It's not atypical for them to be implicit in Greek, but I left them out because what jumps out at me is the parallelism in the structure:

ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα και ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
ex hou ta panta kai hemeis eis auton
out of whom all things and we into him

δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
di' hou ta panta kai hemeis di' autou
through whom all things and we through him
​

Most English translations employ a secondary elliptical meaning of "eis", changing the "into" into "for", because "into" doesn't seem like very good English, and there are occasional uses of "eis" which seem to require such a translation, but the direct translation is interesting in terms of metaphysics and the possible relation to a more Greek philosophical view.

"ex" and "eis" are prepositions with literally opposite meanings, and their grammatical usage reflects that in a couple ways. "ex" is the prefix from which we get "ex-wife" and other usages. It very literally indicates a kind of motion of one thing out of another. "eis" indicates motion of one thing into another thing, distinguished from "en" which indicates something being statically inside something else.

Because of the parallelism, it seems intentional that the intended meaning is to emphasize that all things come out of God, and we return into God. The translation of "eis" as "for" seems more like a theological hesitation than a linguistic one. This movement out of God and back into God is then placed parallel to the role of Christ, through whom everything emerges out of God and through whom we also exist.

What is also interesting is that this usage is exactly what we also find in Romans 11, where it is normally translated more directly:

ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Rom 11:36)
for from him and through him and into him are all things
​

Then there is also Acts 17:28, which is probably a reference to Epimenides of Crete (cf. wikipedia): "For in him we live and move and have our being"

The "through him" attributed to Christ is interesting, metaphysically, in light of the hymn of Colossians 1:

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν

For in him all things were created
in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible
whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities
all things were created through him and to him
and he is before all things and all things in him are made to stand together
​

Again what seems to be implied, metaphysically, is a more panentheistic view, where not only does God create the world, as in traditional Judaism, but that this creation exists and is sustained by that same Divinity which is also immanent in the world.

This is already long enough, so I'm cutting this off here. There are of course possible objections to some of this which I alluded to in (3) but haven't addressed, but I think it's interesting. Sorry this is so long, thoughts are welcome. I'm looking at you @Windwalker, @Orbit, and @sojourner

Eating meat sacrificed to idols/gods wouldnt be literal food either. It's the food the mind intakes (thoughts, etc.) Feasting with would be reasoning with/communicating with.

A mind that sacrifices inner truth to thinking of "God" as any image/idol. Thinking of Jesus as a literal guy/image would be one. It distorts from the inner Christ for outward deity dogma. It divides.

It would be like me feasting(having a conversation) with someone. Someone trying to feed my mind thoughts that the Christ is a literal deity old man with gray hair and a white beard hovering in the sky) while I'd be trying to tell them that the Christ is within and not a literal idol/image.

The ideas/thoughts(meat) they are trying to feed are just images/idols of the beast(ego/unconscious/asleep/unawaremind)

 

[Unification]

http://cosmometry.net/the-torus---dynamic-flow-process