The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:22 am

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:53 am
Ben that's the one and that's what i would have posted if i'd got there first!
it's a great book and i came away basically convinced the Jewish mindset/culture is different from Greek and safely assume anything very early Christian really refers to this way of thinking
Ode 22
He who caused me to descend from on high, and to ascend from the regions below;
And He who gathers what is in the Middle, and throws them to me;
He who scattered my enemies, and my adversaries;
He who gave me authority over bonds, so that I might unbind them;
He who overthrew by my hands the dragon with seven heads, and set me at his roots that I might destroy his seed;
You were there and helped me, and in every place Your name surrounded me.
Your right hand destroyed his evil venom, and Your hand leveled the Way for those who believe in You.
And It chose them from the graves, and separated them from the dead ones.
It took dead bones and covered them with flesh.
But they were motionless, so It gave them energy for life.
Incorruptible was Your way and Your face; You have brought Your world to corruption, that everything might be resolved and renewed.

And the foundation of everything is Your rock. And upon it You have built Your kingdom, and it became the dwelling-place of the holy ones.
Hallelujah.

-------------

I had not read Ode 22 before, but it seems like a meditation on the meaning of the "flesh and bone" resurrection appearance in GLuke.

gryan
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:44 am

rgprice wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:14 am
gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:43 am
Thesis: Originally, when these texts were read by those who, as we say, "got it," life after "co-crucifixion"--transformed existence in the "now" and "in the flesh"--provided the phenomenological (intersubjective) basis for the narrative of resurrection in a body of "flesh and bones" (originally understood as real manifestation of the divine life, in the "now" and "in the flesh," but not a literal, objective resuscitation of a dead body).

This soon forgotten understanding of the original texts of the NT (cited above) was the origin of the words of the Apostle's creed, "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh (σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν).

Thoughts?
I think this makes some sense. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the original meaning was that the Spirit of Jesus was resurrected in the flesh of the devotee, correct?

I'd have to study Marcion's version of Paul's letters to know if this is what Paul may have originally intended. It seems that Paul was originally talking about a real resurrection of bodies. I've always read Paul's talk of resurrection in light of Ezekiel 37.
Matt 27:52 sounds to me like the "dry bones" of Ezekiel rising:
"The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,"

Romans 10:9 talks about belief leading to salvation:
"...if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

I take 1 Thessalonians to be dutero-Paul, written on the basis of an interpretation of 1 Cor.

1 Cor 10 talks about rising in "spiritual bodies," but also talks about it as if it could come in this generation: "51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed..."

I think the realized eschatology of GJohn is implicit in parts of Paul's writings. In particular, Galatians 2:20, "...the life I now live in the flesh, I live in the faithfulness, that of the God and Christ ("God's son," in Marcion, and most critical texts) who loved [redeemed, Marcion] me and gave himself for me."

The Galatians received the Spirit in order to become Christ's "flesh" in the world, thus I understand Gal 3:3 as a word of encouragement to the "unperceptive": "Having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh you are being made perfect."

I am well aware that my rereadings depart significantly from standard interpretations. I am seeking a more ancient, authentic coherence of grammar and sense.

davidmartin
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by davidmartin » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:13 pm

Ode 22 can be taken in a metaphysical sense. For sure numerous readings are all quite possible

This world is the world of the dead and all alive here are really in their graves
(extreme but metaphysically not strange at all or alien to gospels, 'let the dead bury their dead')
So these folk are not physically dead but called dead bones without any flesh!
They are 'chosen' / 'called' out to receive life - in this life
metaphysically being reborn with new flesh and life

So i don't see physical resurrection here or anything eschatological - all is in the present realised timeframe

In this reading it's more provocative than Paul and goes further than him?
I see them all as realised in the present but it would be easy - very easy to read them differently or more traditionally

gryan
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:39 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:13 pm
Ode 22 can be taken in a metaphysical sense. For sure numerous readings are all quite possible

This world is the world of the dead and all alive here are really in their graves
(extreme but metaphysically not strange at all or alien to gospels, 'let the dead bury their dead')
So these folk are not physically dead but called dead bones without any flesh!
They are 'chosen' / 'called' out to receive life - in this life
metaphysically being reborn with new flesh and life

So i don't see physical resurrection here or anything eschatological - all is in the present realised timeframe

In this reading it's more provocative than Paul and goes further than him?
I see them all as realised in the present but it would be easy - very easy to read them differently or more traditionally
That's a good figurative reading of Odes!

Here is my figurative reading of GLuke in light of LXX usage as it appears in 2 Sam 19:12:

"You are my brothers (δελφοί) you are my bones and my flesh" (ὀστᾶ μου καὶ σάρκες μου).

In the 2 Sam passage, the word "ἀδελφοί" connects “bones and flesh” blood kinship. The phrase used elsewhere in the LXX with a sense of becoming figurative kin in a covenant ((Gn 29,14; Jgs 9,2 ; 2 Sm 5,1 [1 Chr 11,1]; 2 Sm 19,13f)

Bearing in mind the LXX idea of“flesh and bone” here is what strikes me as I read Luke 24:32-36:

The two on the Emmaus road, one of them named Cleopas (Lk. 24:18) were pondering the effect of a post-crucifiction encounter with Jesus on their hearts, and immediately (“that very hour” αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ) they returned to Jerusalem (εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ) where they found “the eleven” and “those with them” (who were those with them?). They discussing yet another resurrection appearance--the one experienced by “Simon” (Peter). It was while they were comparing and contrasting these resurrection appearances with Peter that it happened--the appearance in “flesh and bone.”

“While they were describing these events, Jesus Himself stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” But they were startled and frightened, thinking they had seen a spirit. “Why are you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see—for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet.”

And who were “those with them” in that gathering? Acts 1:13-14 provides a closer look at “the Eleven” and “those with them”:

“...the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James ("the Eleven").14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers (“those with them”)

How does it change the story if with think of the resurrection appearance happening with Jesus's own "brothers," his "bone and flesh" right there in the room?

The family of the deceased at any ordinary funeral are reminders of the one who died. Seeing them eat food at the reception can be a reminder of the deceased eating.

Could it be that "flesh and bone" alludes to the brothers of Jesus and his mother-- symbolic of the life of Jesus ongoing in "bone and flesh" literally and figuratively?

Feedback welcome, and needed!

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by mlinssen » Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:33 pm

gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:33 am
mlinssen wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:18 am
John is a special case, as he addresses all the concepts of the NT but without the literal words, usually

5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless anyone be born of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. 6That having been born of the flesh is flesh, and that having been born of the Spirit is spirit.

Yes!

As an interpreter, I try come to the text as a human being first. I'm not here to sell the Christian brand. Human beings have a lot in common, especially when it comes to our "bone and flesh" in the biological sense, as modern medicine makes clear. Also, the world over there is awareness something more than mere "bone and flesh"--our bodies are energy bodies. Traditional healers and mystics "see" and work with "energy bodies."

The passage from GJohn (cited above) is an initiation into the mysteries of the spirit-body. Being born of the spirit does not mean the elimination of flesh. In GJohn, "The word became flesh and dwelt among us." The flesh becomes a place of love in the world.

This Rabbinic dialogue provides an interesting and humorous place to ponder literal vs figurative meaning:

"Theologian Charles Ellicott wrote that 'after the method of Rabbinic dialogue, [Nicodemus] presses the impossible meaning of the words in order to exclude it, and to draw forth the true meaning. 'You cannot mean that a man is to enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born. What is it, then, that you do mean?' In this instance, Nicodemus chooses the literal (rather than the figurative) meaning of anōthen and assumes that that meaning exhausts the significance of the word."
Nicodemus

I think the resurrection stories in the Gospels should be approached similarly: To draw forth the true meaning of the words, "press the impossible meaning in order to exclude it."

Thoughts?
That's the spiritual approach really, the Tao-like goal that Thomas has in mind as well. John comes very close to that but right in this verse that's exactly what he means.
If you follow Plato you see the duality working through into the cynics and the ascetics, taking the body versus the soul to extremes - that is far from the Eastern approach where yin and yang co-exist and together form a union

That's what John has in mind when he said "I and the father are one" although he should have gotten berated for that LOL, in the Christian world.
But I and the Father are one, one and the same, and it is just that the You is really two you's, and neither of those

The slaveowner and the slave - when you make the two one you merely realise that your are those two, and then the One, the Father, You - surfaces and remains.
For a while LOL

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:51 pm

gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:33 am

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless anyone be born of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That having been born of the flesh is flesh, and that having been born of the Spirit is spirit.

Th[at] passage from GJohn...is an initiation into the mysteries of the spirit-body. Being born of the spirit does not mean the elimination of flesh. In GJohn, "The word became flesh and dwelt among us." The flesh becomes a place of love in the world.
"born of water" is likely to be a reference to amniotic fluid and actual parturition, but it also invokes the theology around Osiris and his birth and rebirth via the Nile (& repackaged with the cult of Antinous who, ironically, is said to have died in the Nile during the annual festival celebrating Osiris).

gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:33 am

This Rabbinic dialogue provides an interesting and humorous place to ponder literal vs figurative meaning:

"Theologian Charles Ellicott wrote that 'after the method of Rabbinic dialogue, [Nicodemus] presses the impossible meaning of the words in order to exclude it, and to draw forth the true meaning. 'You cannot mean that a man is to enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born. What is it, then, that you do mean?' In this instance, Nicodemus chooses the literal (rather than the figurative) meaning of anōthen1 and assumes that that meaning exhausts the significance of the word."
Nicodemus

I think the resurrection stories in the Gospels should be approached similarly: To draw forth the true meaning of the words, "press the impossible meaning in order to exclude it."
1 anōthen, ἄνωθεν,
  • Definition: from above
  • Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.
John 3

.
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above,[a] he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus says to Him, “How is a man able to be born, being old? Is he able to enter into the womb of his mother a second time, & to be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless anyone be born of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That having been born of the flesh is flesh, and that having been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not wonder that I said to you, ‘It is necessary for you all to be born from above.’

[a] The Greek for 'from above' means 'again' [and vice versa]; also in verse 7.
.

It's worth noting the idea in antiquity of the firmament with water above, separating the earthly realm from the heavens above.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by mlinssen » Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:19 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:51 pm
gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:33 am

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless anyone be born of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That having been born of the flesh is flesh, and that having been born of the Spirit is spirit.

Th[at] passage from GJohn...is an initiation into the mysteries of the spirit-body. Being born of the spirit does not mean the elimination of flesh. In GJohn, "The word became flesh and dwelt among us." The flesh becomes a place of love in the world.
"born of water" is likely to be a reference to amniotic fluid and actual parturition, but it also invokes the theology around Osiris and his birth and rebirth via the Nile (& repackaged with the cult of Antinous who, ironically, is said to have died in the Nile during the annual festival celebrating Osiris).

gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:33 am

This Rabbinic dialogue provides an interesting and humorous place to ponder literal vs figurative meaning:

"Theologian Charles Ellicott wrote that 'after the method of Rabbinic dialogue, [Nicodemus] presses the impossible meaning of the words in order to exclude it, and to draw forth the true meaning. 'You cannot mean that a man is to enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born. What is it, then, that you do mean?' In this instance, Nicodemus chooses the literal (rather than the figurative) meaning of anōthen1 and assumes that that meaning exhausts the significance of the word."
Nicodemus

I think the resurrection stories in the Gospels should be approached similarly: To draw forth the true meaning of the words, "press the impossible meaning in order to exclude it."
1 anōthen, ἄνωθεν,
  • Definition: from above
  • Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.
John 3

.
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above,[a] he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus says to Him, “How is a man able to be born, being old? Is he able to enter into the womb of his mother a second time, & to be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless anyone be born of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That having been born of the flesh is flesh, and that having been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not wonder that I said to you, ‘It is necessary for you all to be born from above.’

[a] The Greek for 'from above' means 'again' [and vice versa]; also in verse 7.
.

It's worth noting the idea in antiquity of the firmament with water above, separating the earthly realm from the heavens above.
It all is a perfect remake of the original that has been talked about so much, that which stands in contrast with

Matthew 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!
Luke 7:28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,

and it is beautifully phrased in John:

John 1:13 who were born not of blood, nor of will of flesh, nor of will of man, but of God.

whereas Paul struggles with it:

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,
23 But indeed, the one of the slave woman has been born according to flesh, but the one of the free, through the promise,
29 But just as at that time the one having been born according to flesh was persecuting the one born according to Spirit, so also it is now.

1 Peter experiments further:

1 Peter 1:23 having been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, by the living and abiding word of God,

And 1 John continues where John left off

1 John 3:9 Anyone having been born of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to continue sinning, because he has been born of God.
4:7 Beloved, we should love one another, because love is from God; and everyone loving has been born from God and knows God.
5:1 Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone loving the One having begotten Him also loves the one having been begotten from Him.
4 For everyone having been born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory having overcome the world: our faith.
18 We know that everyone having been born of God does not continue to sin, but the One having been begotten of God protects him,c and the evil one does not touch him.

And of course I will argue that all those wild and crooked branches all were planted onto the same tree:

15 said IS : When you(PL) "should" behold him-who there-is-not they beget him from the(F) woman: bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship him; he-who therein is your(PL.) father

As usual, Thomas holds the basic form, isn't trying to explain it or put it to a certain use. He is pointing to the real You here, unknown to all - but that is besides the point, everyone just tried to make sense of the riddling "(not) begotten of woman", and that is exactly what we encounter in the NT; every single struggle in the NT can be pointed back to Thomas having the concept in a very basic and simple and concise form

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:53 am

mlinssen wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:19 am

It all is a perfect remake of the original that has been talked about so much, that which stands in contrast with

Matthew 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!
Luke 7:28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,

You say Paul struggles with Gal 4:4, though I note Gal 4:4 is the only one of those three verses which is specific to an individual ie. God's Son.

Moreover, a Jew's mother had to be Jewish for him to be considered Jewish ie. *born of a woman* to be born under the Law


One question that arises from seeing Thomas 15 here (along with the similar NT verses, including Gal 4:4, -
mlinssen wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:19 am

And of course I will argue that all those wild and crooked branches all were planted onto the same tree:

15 said IS : When you(PL) "should" behold him-who there-is-not they beget him from the(F) woman: bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship him; he-who therein is your(PL.) father

As usual, Thomas holds the basic form, isn't trying to explain it or put it to a certain use. He is pointing to the real You here, unknown to all - but that is besides the point, everyone just tried to make sense of the riddling "(not) begotten of woman", and that is exactly what we encounter in the NT; every single struggle in the NT can be pointed back to Thomas having the concept in a very basic and simple and concise form
- is, Do you think it's possible that, "not they beget him from the(F) woman," could be a refutation of Gal 4:4's, "having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law" ??

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by mlinssen » Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:33 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:53 am
mlinssen wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:19 am

It all is a perfect remake of the original that has been talked about so much, that which stands in contrast with

Matthew 11:11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!
Luke 7:28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,

You say Paul struggles with Gal 4:4, though I note Gal 4:4 is the only one of those three verses which is specific to an individual ie. God's Son.

Moreover, a Jew's mother had to be Jewish for him to be considered Jewish ie. *born of a woman* to be born under the Law
Well, it doesn't say anywhere that the woman is Jewish, or does it? Could have been Greek, Roman or even Australian (or Dutch for that matter).
Struggling, yes: seeking to find an application for this riddling concept of "not begotten of woman". How on earth does Galatians think it is a good idea to have Jesus be born of a woman?

Galatians 4:1 Now I say, for as long a time as the heir is a child, he differs not from a slave, though being owner of everything.
2 Instead, he is under guardians and trustees until the time appointed by his father.
3 So also, we when we were children, were held in bondage under the principlesa of the world.
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,
5 that He might redeem those under the Law, so that we might receive the divine adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”
7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God.

It's just cheap name-dropping, rubbish, garbage, meaningless nonsense; all of Paul is based on the concept of the Naked Emperor. It is the epitome of pre-sales bullshit
One question that arises from seeing Thomas 15 here (along with the similar NT verses, including Gal 4:4, -
mlinssen wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:19 am

And of course I will argue that all those wild and crooked branches all were planted onto the same tree:

15 said IS : When you(PL) "should" behold him-who there-is-not they beget him from the(F) woman: bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship him; he-who therein is your(PL.) father

As usual, Thomas holds the basic form, isn't trying to explain it or put it to a certain use. He is pointing to the real You here, unknown to all - but that is besides the point, everyone just tried to make sense of the riddling "(not) begotten of woman", and that is exactly what we encounter in the NT; every single struggle in the NT can be pointed back to Thomas having the concept in a very basic and simple and concise form
- is, Do you think it's possible that, "not they beget him from the(F) woman," could be a refutation of Gal 4:4's, "having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law" ??
Perfectly possible, sure - anything is possible. What would he be refuting, and why? Would he be contesting that "Jesus" was not born of a woman?

gryan
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:59 am

mlinssen wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:19 am

And of course I will argue that all those wild and crooked branches all were planted onto the same tree:

15 said IS : When you(PL) "should" behold him-who there-is-not they beget him from the(F) woman: bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship him; he-who therein is your(PL.) father

As usual, Thomas holds the basic form, isn't trying to explain it or put it to a certain use. He is pointing to the real You here, unknown to all - but that is besides the point, everyone just tried to make sense of the riddling "(not) begotten of woman", and that is exactly what we encounter in the NT; every single struggle in the NT can be pointed back to Thomas having the concept in a very basic and simple and concise form
mlinssen: Thanks for sharing this chain of interpretation. I had not considered this combination of texts before.

Clearly, you have poured a lot of life energy into your translation of Thomas 15:

"said IS : When you(PL) "should" behold him-who there-is-not they beget him from the(F) woman: bend-self you(PL) upon your(PL.) face and you(PL) worship him; he-who therein is your(PL.) father"

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how Thomas 15 might interact with these two texts:

Gal 6:8
Because the one sowing in his own flesh will reap perishability from the flesh; but the one sowing in the spirit will reap life in the Age from the spirit. (Tr. DB Hart and me)

Heb 12:9
Moreover, we have had fathers of our flesh who were disciplinarians, and we respected them; shall we not be far more subordinate to the Father of the spirits and live? (Tr. DB Hart)
Last edited by gryan on Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply