The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Whitney]

"Fibbing", as you call it, is another word for lying. When you say I'm fibbing, you are accusing me of lying.  You are impugning my character.  So we start down the road to nastiness.  I've been on several atheist fora, and it always ends that way.  I thought "Happy Atheist" would be different, and maybe it will be. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.

Instead of bashing the entire forum by suspecting that it's just going to turn into "nastiness" why don't you just report someone to the moderator if you think they are being uncivil?  If it goes to nastiness it will be your fault just as much as whomever you follow (or lead) down that road.  Moderators can't see everything because sometimes the topics just aren't something we want or have time to read through in detail.  I don't even know what fibbing instance you are referring to because I don't really care to read through the whole thread to find it; but you can feel free to point it out (via pm as I don't know how regularly I'll check this thread) if you think it needs to be addressed before you can move on.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 1:  Paul probably at least saw the physical Jesus ("in the flesh") and alludes to this in II Corinthians 5:16.

I am in the minority on this, but I am right.  Here's the text:  II Corinthians 5:16: "Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer." (NASB)  In Greek, the passage reads Ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα: εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν." There are no textual variants on this verse of which I am aware.  The lack of any textual variants for this passage creates a high degree of probability that this is exactly what Paul originally wrote.  There is no evidence that anyone other than Paul wrote this passage.    
The key phrase here is κατὰ σάρκα - "according to the flesh."  This simply means "physically." Here is a list of times when this phrase is used in the verified epistles of Paul:
1.   Romans 1:3 – "born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" – here Paul is saying that Jesus was born physically in the lineage of King David.
2.   Romans 9:3 – "my kinsmen according to the flesh" – here Paul is discussing the sorrow he has for his physical kinsmen, the Jews, who rejected Jesus as Messiah.
3.   IICorinthians  1:17 – "do I purpose according to the flesh..."  - Here Paul is discussing his plans for physical travel.
4.   II Corinthians 5:16 – the passage under consideration.
5.   II Corinthians 10:2 – "as if we walked according to the flesh" – Here Paul is claiming spiritual power and authority as opposed to those who merely rely on physical power.
It is clear from these passages (please read them in context) that Paul uses this phrase to mean "physically."  Only those like Earl Doherty, who is in the Dan Brown class of writers (authors of VEBS – Very Entertaining Bullshit), who have an agenda and want to sell controversial books, will deny that this is the import of the phrase.  

So, the verse can be rendered "(t)herefore from now on we recognize no one physically; even though we have known Christ physically, yet now we know Him in this way no longer."  I emphasize "we" here because Paul is placing himself in the category of those who knew Christ physically.  Otherwise, he would have said "you."  By using "we," Paul is identifying with those who once knew Jesus physically, but now know him spiritually (through the communion of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit).  He is saying that since we now know Christ spiritually, we should relate to each other (i.e.: fellow believers) in the same way – spiritually.  This means that Christians should look at each other from a spiritual standpoint and not get distracted by the imperfections of other believers' physical appearance, stature, and characteristics.

It is quite easy to understand how Paul could have known Jesus physically.  As a Pharisee, he would have been present in Jerusalem at Passover, and would have been involved in the Pharisees' discussions with Jesus right before his crucifixon.  Just as he was present for Stephen's stoning, he would have been present for Jesus' ordeal.  He was not a disciple, and undoubtedly hated Jesus at that point.  However, he would have seen him, and thus would have been able to write "even though we have known Christ physically."  Clearly, Paul had seen the historical Jesus.

And, by the way, no one can say that Paul never mentioned seeing the historical Jesus, because he mentions it in this verse.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Instead of bashing the entire forum by suspecting that it's just going to turn into "nastiness" why don't you just report someone to the moderator if you think they are being uncivil?  If it goes to nastiness it will be your fault just as much as whomever you follow (or lead) down that road.  Moderators can't see everything because sometimes the topics just aren't something we want or have time to read through in detail.  I don't even know what fibbing instance you are referring to because I don't really care to read through the whole thread to find it; but you can feel free to point it out (via pm as I don't know how regularly I'll check this thread) if you think it needs to be addressed before you can move on.

You are right.  I apologize.  No need to look into the issue any further. I'm over it.

[Too Few Lions]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 1:  Paul probably at least saw the physical Jesus ("in the flesh") and alludes to this in II Corinthians 5:16.

I am in the minority on this, but I am right.  Here's the text:  II Corinthians 5:16: "Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer." to the flesh..."  
So, the verse can be rendered "(t)herefore from now on we recognize no one physically; even though we have known Christ physically, yet now we know Him in this way no longer."  I emphasize "we" here because Paul is placing himself in the category of those who knew Christ physically.  Otherwise, he would have said "you."  By using "we," Paul is identifying with those who once knew Jesus physically, but now know him spiritually (through the communion of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit).  He is saying that since we now know Christ spiritually, we should relate to each other (i.e.: fellow believers) in the same way – spiritually.  This means that Christians should look at each other from a spiritual standpoint and not get distracted by the imperfections of other believers' physical appearance, stature, and characteristics.

It is quite easy to understand how Paul could have known Jesus physically.  As a Pharisee, he would have been present in Jerusalem at Passover, and would have been involved in the Pharisees' discussions with Jesus right before his crucifixon.  Just as he was present for Stephen's stoning, he would have been present for Jesus' ordeal.  He was not a disciple, and undoubtedly hated Jesus at that point.  However, he would have seen him, and thus would have been able to write "even though we have known Christ physically."  Clearly, Paul had seen the historical Jesus.

And, by the way, no one can say that Paul never mentioned seeing the historical Jesus, because he mentions it in this verse.

You are indeed in the minority on this, but there is a reason for that, you are most probably wrong. Paul isn't saying that he actually met a historical Jesus in that passage, you're making things up out a text that doesn't remotely suggest that, because it fits what you want to believe. A perfect example of the problem we've been alluding to, a Christian interpreting a text in an unorthodox way to suit his own beliefs.

Surely Paul is just referring to Jesus generally. Why doesn't he just say 'I met Jesus, he was giving some sermon' etc etc. The writer of Paul's letters just made things up to try and claim authority in the Church. Hence the whole 'Road to Damascus' crap. He had to invesnt a vision of Jesus because he hadn't actually met said mythical figure. By saying 'We', Paul is referring to all Christians, or at least those Christians to whom the letter is addressed.

You're also quoting that passage out of context, Paul isn't saying it in a quasi-historical account of his meeting with Jesus, it appears in a Platonically influenced discourse with themes such as the importance of the spiritual (or non-existent) over the physical, and the exile of the soul away from god, and the redemption and reconciliation with god (through philosophy for Plato, Christianity for Paul). I thought you were big on noting that some parts of the Bible are written in a historical style and some not. Let's put that quote in a fuller context (2 Cor 5.14-17);

'For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.'

Not a statement that Paul ever met a historical Jesus, merely a few theological ideas. Paul is promoting the 'spiritual' over the physical, that was an important part of his beliefs repeated plenty of times in his writings. Otherwise how do you interpret 'from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh'? He does a similar thing earlier in the passage,

'For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.' (2 Cor 5.1)

Oh, and Paul never mentioned seeing a historical Jesus, particularly not in that verse!

[Crow]

Not a statement that Paul ever met a historical Jesus, merely a few theological ideas. Paul is promoting the 'spiritual' over the physical, that was an important part of his beliefs repeated plenty of times in his writings.

This has always been my interpretation of the said text even without it being in context I still read it that way. My own view of the text has been more like this: From now on we/christians recognise the soul rather than the man/women, we/christians knew jesus was a man yet now we know him in the spirit.

Quite a different take you have an that Bruce. Different but interesting. I just don't see how you have come to your interpretation of the text from what is written especially when in context, tried to understand your view with your examples but I don't see how they indicate anything more than that they knew Jesus was a man i.e. a meat sack, blood and bones, of the flesh.

[Too Few Lions]

Bruce, obviously you and us are going to have different views on this subject, but I hope there wouldn't be any nastiness (I don't think there has been so far). I think it's a little unfair and disingenuous to suggest there would be. You've chosen to believe pretty much all of what Paul claims to be true in his letters, we're more skeptical, but both sides are entitled to their opinions (and that includes you!) I do wonder if you feel a special attachment to Paul because of the religious experience you had and the one he claimed to have had.

"Fibbing", as you call it, is another word for lying. When you say I'm fibbing, you are accusing me of lying.  You are impugning my character.  So we start down the road to nastiness.  I've been on several atheist fora, and it always ends that way.  I thought "Happy Atheist" would be different, and maybe it will be. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.

Sorry for using the word 'fib' Bruce, I wasn't calling you a liar or attempting to impugn your character. I use the word 'fib' quite flippantly and lightheartedly and don't consider 'fib' and 'lie' to be wholly synonymous. I just don't accept that line remotely means that Paul's claiming to have seen a historical Jesus. I don't think I'm alone in that view. But sorry for any offence caused, i'll try and choose my words more carefully from now on.

[OldGit]

Itaque nos ex hoc neminem novimus secundum carnem. Et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum: sed nunc iam non novimus.

Bruce's translation is OK, except si cognovimus is 'IF we have known...'  As to what the passage was actually meant to convey ....  ???   The sed 'but' begins a new main clause when we were expecting a resolution to the 'if' clause.

Sorry, I've checked the original Greek and I'm not comfortable about commenting on such subtle points as  εἰ .... ἀλλὰ ....

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Itaque nos ex hoc neminem novimus secundum carnem. Et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum: sed nunc iam non novimus.

Bruce's translation is OK, except si cognovimus is 'IF we have known...'  As to what the passage was actually meant to convey ....  ???   The sed 'but' begins a new main clause when we were expecting a resolution to the 'if' clause.

Sorry, I've checked the original Greek and I'm not comfortable about commenting on such subtle points as  εἰ .... ἀλλὰ ....

Thanks for the Latin - adds depth to the conversation.  It's the "nunc" ("nun" in Greek) that creates the sense of a comparison of "before and after."  "Before we knew Christ physically, but now we don't know him that way anymore" is a paraphrase. First physical, then spiritual. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 2:  Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been in Jerusalem at the Passover, and would have been involved in the Pharisees' encounters with Jesus during that last week.  As a young man, he may not have been personally introduced, but probably saw Jesus and heard him teach and argue.  That would explain the reference in II Corinthians 5:16.

I touched on this at the end of Point No. 1.  Acts, which was written by Paul's companion Luke, has Paul in Jerusalem at the stoning of Stephen. Acts 7:58 (Paul's Hebrew name was Saul, a famous king from his tribe of Benjamin.)  In Acts 22:3, as Paul is defending himself against a mob in Jerusalem, he is quoted as saying that he was born in Tarsus of Cilicia (modern day southern Turkey), but was brought up in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, a famous rabbi, Pharisee, and member of the Jewish Sanhedrin.  Paul writes his own pedigree in Philippians 3:4, explaining that he was a circumcised Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, a devout follower of the Torah, and (before his conversion) a persecutor of the church.

If he was brought up in Jerusalem and was still a young man at the stoning of Stephen (which generally is considered to have occurred within just a few years of the crucifixion of Jesus), then it is reasonable to assume that he was still living in Jerusalem on the Passover when Jesus was killed.  Even if he was not living there at the time, the Passover was one of the three main feasts of Second Temple Judaism in which Jewish males were supposed to come to Jerusalem to worship.  This would have been doubly important for a young Pharisee, who would have wanted to be at the center of the Jewish liturgical cycle. 

Mark, the first gospel written, devotes a substantial portion of his work to the last week of Jesus' life, which occurred during Passover in Jerusalem.  He records a confrontation with the Pharisees in Mark 12:13, in which some Pharisees teamed up with some members of Herod's party to attempt to trap Jesus.  The Pharisees had been confronting Jesus throughout his ministry, and now they were partnering with other factions to try to get Jesus to appear to be contesting the authority of Rome.  Paul, as an up and coming young Pharisee, would probably have been privy to the Pharisees' plans to entrap Jesus.  This would have given him substantial opportunity to see Jesus and hear him preach, even if he was not a disciple. 

Given this scenario, it makes perfect sense that Paul would have encountered Jesus at the Passover.  Just as he was in the thick of things at the stoning of Stephen, there is no reason to suspect that he would not have been in the vicinity when the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities occurred.  Thus, he could say in II Corinthians 5:16 "we have known Christ according to the flesh."   

[Too Few Lions]

Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!

The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.

[Gawen]

I see that I'm going to have to write up a dissertation of Paul, showing that he was most likely not a Pharisee, etc., etc., etc.

[Too Few Lions]

I see that I'm going to have to write up a dissertation of Paul, showing that he was most likely not a Pharisee, etc., etc., etc.

I'll look forward to reading it

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!

The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.

There's absolutely no reason not to see Acts as the work of a contemporary of Paul who researched the matters about which he wrote, and was an eyewitness of some of them.  The internal evidence of the book indicates that the author was an eyewitness after about chapter 16, and his account goes up until about 62 C.E.  While you might dispute some of his facts, there's no reason not to accept the book as a genuine account.  Unless, of course, you have decided a priori to reject anything written by early Christians.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 3: As a Jew living in Palestine, Paul would have been aware of the events and history of his day.

This is a relatively minor point, but important, nonetheless.  People are generally familiar with their surroundings and generally know what is going on around them.  Thus, when they communicate, there is a common fund of knowledge which is assumed.  If I am having a conversation with a contemporary, I don't have to explain that Barack Obama is the President of the USA, or that the twin towers were destroyed on 9-11, or that we are now in an economic recession.  We all know about these things, so references to these facts in our conversations are going to be tangential and occasional.  We mention them in passing, without stopping to inform the listener/reader about the history of some event that is within everyone's common knowledge.

This is important when reading Paul's epistles, because he will often mention some fact or event in passing without explaining it.  This is because he not only is aware of what is going on around him in his own world, but he assumes that those to whom he is writing also participate in this common fund of knowledge.  If Paul's letters were "once upon a time" documents, we could legitimately say that he was not writing from personal knowledge.  But when he mentions certain facts about Jesus without a lot of explanation, it is safe to assume that this was part of that common fund of knowledge about which he and his readers were jointly aware.  This will become important in subsequent points.     

[xSilverPhinx]

One problem I have with your point number 3:

Back in the day, people generally knew what was going on around them because of oral traditions and stories. Nowadays we don't have that problem, if you want to show that Obama actually said something, you show the skeptic a recording, either authentically written by him, or a video/audio clip. It works for future generations as well, who would not have ever seen Obama in their lives. They're independent of faulty human memory.