Commentary on Romans 8

[Robert Tulip]

There could be some level of hidden meaning in the Sermon on the Mount. For example ‘turn the other cheek’ is arguably a statement of defiance against Roman arrogance, while ‘go the extra mile’ looks intended to humiliate the Roman military.

The key mystery of the kingdom, as explained by Paul in his allegory in Galatians 4, is that the new Jerusalem is “above”, and can be seen by looking up. This mystery flows through into a coherent Gnostic meaning for the Jesus story as cosmic allegory.

The sermon on the mount is patently ethical requiring no further layers of explanation to get the meaning.

Is there hidden meaning in the Sermon on the Mount? In the ‘turn the other cheek’ phrase, Jesus says if someone strikes you on the right cheek, you should turn the other cheek. One interpretation is that hitting someone with the right hand on the right cheek involves sweeping them out of the way with a backhander, rather than punching them as an equal. So the Romans sought to demean the Jews as subhuman, but Jesus counsels the defiance of integrity, the assertion of shared humanity. The Sermon on the Mount illustrates how there are hidden depths of meaning in a range of Biblical writings.

You just don't accept the interpretation given since it has supernatural elements of angels etc.

The concepts of angels and demons are themselves allegorical myths that were invented in order to personify natural forces. Like the struggle between Jesus and Satan for forty days in the wilderness, the supernatural myths personify a cosmic story in order to make it accessible to a wider audience. These stories evolved from earlier myths, especially the Egyptian story of the war between Horus and Seth.

In your view the Gnostics composed parables in order to further conceal the provided interpretations that themselves conceal presumably astro-theological explanations. This is a bottomless pit interpretively.

The purpose of parables in Gnostic thought was not originally to conceal but to explain. Unfortunately the keys to the kingdom were lost, and false imaginary keys were invented by the Petrist church. The parables are primarily ethical in meaning, whereas miracles such as the virgin birth, walking on water, feeding the multitude and the resurrection of Christ can best be understood as allegory for the sun. Far from a bottomless pit, this reading is grounded in observation of nature. The real abyss is the supernatural imagination which mistakes its mythical dreams for reality.

[Robert Tulip]

Can you provide an example of Gnostic astro-theological interpretation of the gospels from the early centuries? Not in what has survived, and it makes no sense that Irenaeus, for instance would fail to mention astro-theology in his lengthy refutation of Gnosticism if it was the heart and soul of the whole thing.

Hello again Flann, this is therapeutic material to study, and I wish that more people found it of some interest and relevance. Your comment here inspired me to read the commentary on Theodotus by Clement of Alexandria, which illustrates some major early Gnostic ideas.

Clement says the Gnostic leader Valentinus “says the Apostles were substituted for the twelve signs of the Zodiac.” (Excerpta ex Theodoto 25) This is an excellent example to answer your question of a Gnostic astro-theological interpretation of the Gospels from the early centuries, illustrating how astral blueprints were prominent in the construction of the Christ Myth but were suppressed due to their incompatibility with the popular literal Nazareth story.

Reading Clement’s text through provides fascinating insights into the interplay between early Gnostic methods and the emerging orthodoxy. For example Clement remarks that “they see not with an eye of sense, but with the eye of mind, such as the Father provided.” This problem of the relation between logic and sense experience is a core problem in philosophy and theology, since many ignorant people have no idea what it means to see with the eye of mind, but this is central to the Platonic method of Gnosticism.

The relationship between Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons and Gnosticism is not as simple as may appear from quotes taken from his Refutation of All Heresies. In the Cathedral of Lyons, where the church of Irenaeus stood, the floor, in front of the altar has an old worn Mosaic pavement of the Zodiac. Although this may date from later than the time of Irenaeus, there are many zodiacs in early churches, illustrating how the order of cosmos was seen as the intelligible order of God. Irenaeus had detailed knowledge of Gnostic doctrines, and provides a remarkable discussion implying that Jesus lived until he was more than 50.

[DWill]

Bart Ehrman published his book arguing that Jesus existed a couple of years ago. I'm just now getting around to reading it. I recall that the reception of it wasn't favorable here on BT. I'm a little surprised, because I find his arguments extremely cogent. He demonstrates the need for]deep analysis of this matter, a depth that only someone immersed in ancient history and languages, as well as the methods of historical investigation, can hope to deliver. Mythicists tend to rely on single points of contention, such as the absence of contemporaneous mentions of Jesus. A scholar of the period can tell us why that argument from absence doesn't hold up.

[Robert Tulip]

Hi DWill, an excellent rebuttal of Ehrman is the collection of essays edited by Frank Zindler: http://www.amazon.com.au/Ehrman-Quest-H ... B00C9N0WBI

Continuing my orderly responses, I am still at Flann 5's comments from http://www.booktalk.org/post141125.html#p141125

The Hagar -Sarah allegory is not explained as referring to the world and heaven but rather two covenants.

And what are the two covenants of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4? Paul says “Hagar … corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.”

I cite this (continuing to work through comments in order) because Flann has given a typical example of a simple religious assertion which is simply refuted by reading the text. “The present city of Jerusalem in slavery” is allegory for the world, and “the free Jerusalem above” is allegory for heaven. These allegories appear simple, and the fact that they are also covenants, of bondage and freedom, expands on this meaning rather than replacing it.

The whole issue in Galatians is Law and Grace

Allow me to pick up on this comment against the astrotheological symbolism of the shift of zodiac ages.

Grace is a rather mysterious metaphysical term, traditionally thought of as the intervention of God. We can think of grace scientifically in terms of natural order as the source of evolutionary stability. A stable ecosystem is gracious or under grace, while an unstable ecosystem is corrupt or under wrath. Seeing language about God as metaphor for description of natural order, we can say that by the grace of God, algae and then dinosaurs dominated our planet for billions and millions of years.

The magnificent book Rare Earth – Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe provides an excellent primer for a natural scientific theory of grace. By this view, grace is the accidental set of conditions which enabled human evolution, and Paul’s idea that we are saved by grace through faith amounts to saying that our success or failure is a function of these natural enabling conditions and how we respond to them.

Planetary dominion involved harmony with natural order. The high complexity of human intelligence could continue to exist in a state of grace for millions of years, but faces the real risk of rapid extinction due to the prevalence of a state of corruption, to use the theological distinction between grace and corruption that Saint Augustine made central.

For humans to sustain a state of grace involves an explicit understanding that connects us in a stable relationship to natural order. Stability preserves an orderly system that provides sustained security. The core idea in Christianity is that the love of God is the basis of the security obtained through grace, and that we can access this stable providential universal love through faith in Jesus Christ as the point of connection between humanity and divinity.

Unfortunately, faith itself is generally corrupted, and can only become true when fully reconciled with reason. De-corrupting grace is a task for which the concept of zodiac ages is essential and central. The zodiac ages were in fact the template and blueprint used by the ancient Christian authors to construct their model of law and grace as successive covenants. A covenant is a divine plan. The plan seen in the stars is explained by the observed position of the sun. At the time of Christ, the spring and fall equinoxes shifted from the constellations of Aries and Libra to Pisces and Virgo respectively, providing the ‘as above’ heavenly framework for writers including Paul and John to construct the ‘so below’ earthly metaphysics of Christian faith.

The shift from Libra to Virgo symbolises the shift from law to grace, and therefore provides the template for this central Christian concept of the new covenant of grace. Libra, the scales of justice, represents law, while Virgo, the blessed virgin, represents grace. The ancients observed this slow cosmic shift of constellations against the seasons as the equinoxes precessed, and used it to construct their theology of the covenants of law and grace as the revealed plan of God.

For Saint Paul, this grace/wrath distinction relates to the idea that the new covenant of grace in Jesus Christ replaces the old covenant of law from Moses. John 1:17 says “For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.”

Recalling that the text for this thread is Romans 8, we find in the book of Romans that this law and grace theme is central. Paul says in his letter to the Romans that reception of grace and apostleship enables obedience of faith. He explains that inspired leaders are able to give grace of the spirit, and are justified freely by the divine grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

The contrast between grace and law as a basis of salvation is discussed at Romans 5:17, where Paul says “For if by the trespass of the one [Adam’s fall from grace], death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.”

Romans 6:14 summarises the teaching: “For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under law, but under grace.” My concern in reading this claim is that grace is generally interpreted as the traditional authority of the church, and as a result has become a corrupted term, lacking rational accountability to any evidentiary standards, and serving as a cover for sin.

My view is that uncovering the cosmic blueprint within the Bible enables us to understand grace as a coherent and powerful and compelling and elegant scientific concept, even though understanding this involves a wrenching paradigm shift into a new heaven and new earth that unites science and religion.

[book selling diva]

I think people are confusing the parables with the miracles. Yes Jesus used parables in his ministry but, the miracles that was performed was real. Why would Paul use a miracle as a parable when he could have been killed for testifying? Why continue to read a book you don't believe?

P.S. Don't put down Christians for our belief system because you don't believe in anything at all.

[ant]

I think people are confusing the parables with the miracles. Yes Jesus used parables in his ministry but, the miracles that was performed was real. Why would Paul use a miracle as a parable when he could have been killed for testifying? Why continue to read a book you don't believe?

P.S. Don't put down Christians for our belief system because you don't believe in anything at all.

The entire myther thesis is based on a substantial reliance on conspiratorial fabrications and fallacies of composition.
It is largely an anti-christian sect that is rejected by serious mainstream scholarship.

Try not to take it either seriously or personally.

[ant]

Information--the ancient knowledge of the movements of the stars and planets? And again, the nonsense of saying that Paul is out for church growth but is at the same time trying to prevent it. How convenient to be able to say that the absence of content favorable to your view is only to be expected.

(emphasis mine)

Bingo.

[Robert Tulip]

Hello Book Selling Diva, I am breaking my practice of responding to other's comments in this thread in the order they are made in order to welcome you to Booktalk and thank you for your comment, which expresses sentiments that I am sure many people share.

the miracles that was performed was real.

If you had the slightest basis for this claim then you would overturn the entire basis of modern science. I take the view that blind faith such as in your comment is a primary reason for the disrepute in which religion is broadly held. Rational people often tend to be too polite to criticise religious beliefs openly, but the idea that God can break the laws of physics is a joke.

Why would Paul use a miracle as a parable when he could have been killed for testifying?

You are welcome to expand on this question, which as it stands does not make sense. It seems to jumble together relevant issues from a range of points discussed in this thread.

Why continue to read a book you don't believe?

Fantastic question! There are superb moral lessons in many fictional and mythical books. Even Genesis, with its false theory of Young Earth Creationism, can be used as a valuable basis for ethical discussion. My view is that the Bible operates on two levels, popular and secret. The secret teachings are the location of the deep wisdom which is difficult for illiterate and ignorant people to understand. The key principle that we should use to try to discover the real deep wisdom in the Bible is that truth is one, so any claims which contradict our knowledge must be false.

P.S. Don't put down Christians for our belief system because you don't believe in anything at all.

Ha ha, what gives you the basis to claim that I do not believe anything? I believe that the Bible contains deep allegorical moral wisdom based on accurate cosmological observation. I make it a principle to question all beliefs in terms of their basis in evidence and logic. If you think that the Bible is proof that God can break the laws of physics then you have my sincere sympathy.

[Robert Tulip]

http://www.booktalk.org/post141130.html#p141130

Christians today are just as stubborn and recalcitrant as the disciples and others described in the Bible who failed to see the meaning of miracles such as the loaves and fishes. The fact is that all miracle stories are allegory, and it takes a peculiar stiff-necked blindness to fail to see this.

This reminded me of Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. His argument was that since natural selection does not necessarily favor the truth, our beliefs wouldn't be truthful. Therefore, it's unlikely naturalism is truthful. I do think he was on to something. Our tendency to believe things doesn't usually follow the truth of things. Unless we outsource the filter of our knowledge to processes that sustainably lead to truthful conclusions (science and logic), arriving at the truth is a shot in the dark. Up until we've developed these processes, beliefs have ranged all over the places, with gods and miracles and ghosts and fantasies all across history in all cultures. Our earliest attempts at constructing worldviews were bound to be flawed, as Plantinga suggests. We may be able to apply proper method in hindsight, but I'm still skeptical that the ancients could as easily sort truth from fiction. I still think they mixed things up together, believing the concoction entirely.

Hi Interbane, I was so pleased that you made this comment, but I have a low regard for Plantinga. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona ... naturalism explains his crazy assertion that there is a tension between biological evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism. This argument strikes me as the most appalling vacuous question begging that I cannot believe anyone smarter than a moron would take it seriously. It is like saying there is a “tension” between the concepts of “A minus A” and zero. Evolutionary theory is naturalism, and presents a method to evolve beyond the former fantasies through the methodical use of logic and evidence. Plantinga’s assertion that there is daylight between evolution and naturalism is a desperate joke pulled by religious believers who aim to undercut rational science.

Where his discussion of the adaptivity of stupidity is relevant is in the observation that religious believers are not as smart as they claim and their words do not mean what they say. With Jesus laying into his friends for stupidity, the point is that Christianity was invented by some extremely smart people, but they immediately found themselves frustrated by the complete inability of the general public to understand their views.

That is why Jesus said in Matthew 24 that it would take two thousand years for the story of Jesus to be circulated before anyone would understand it. Paul backs up this basic Gnostic idea that people in his day did not have a clue about the meaning of Christianity, but eventually the things then seen ‘through a glass darkly’ would become clear.

It often happens, as with Disney’s Sorceror’s Apprentice, that an artistic creation acquires a life of its own that the creator cannot control, like the broom that floods the room until the right spell can be found to de-animate it. Similarly, having invented the comforting myth of a real messiah, the Gnostic founders of Christianity discovered that this story was so wildly popular that it had a life of its own and there was nothing they could do to control it.

The stupidity rested in mass psychology, not in scientific method as Plantinga implies. But there was a clear ability of mass stupidity to infect the rational process of theology. By insisting on false premises, and burning and killing all evidence that conflicted with the false premise that Jesus Christ walked and talked and went to the toilet, mass protective stupidity produced a highly robust and durable meme.

The false meme of the Historical Jesus is presented by Paul and the Gospels as a stepping stone to enable human evolution to rational understanding. This is why Paul in Romans 8 equates the future enlightenment to child birth, as a painful and difficult process that is essential to bring new life into existence.

[DWill]

Christians today are just as stubborn and recalcitrant as the disciples and others described in the Bible who failed to see the meaning of miracles such as the loaves and fishes. The fact is that all miracle stories are allegory, and it takes a peculiar stiff-necked blindness to fail to see this.

Anthropologically, your statement is obviously untrue, Robert. Think of all the thousands, millions, of stories from mythology, legend, and religion that could be counted as miracle stories. You say they had no purpose other than to convey a truth that was quite counter to their surface meaning. No, rather they often served to characterize the divine beings in ways in which people wanted to see them. In other words, it was story-telling as the primary driver.