Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)
  • Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:57:26 -0700

If I may weigh on this "no subject" first am I to understand that the
subject is Paul's meaning in his contrast between the strong and the weak?
If so, I use a paradigm of mysticism to understand Paul here (we all
interpret from our paradigms don't we--whether or not we admit it), and I
confess that I am a little influenced by the same kind of interpretation of
Paul as Valentinus (Paul toTheudas to Valentinus).

For support I refer to the basic theme of Paul, which is union, probably the
strongest theme of mysticism. Perhaps he knew of Merkabah, or maybe
proto-Kabbalah, perhaps practicing and developing the mystical perspective
during his "absence from the scene" before beginning his practical
evangelizing. Evelyn Underhill in her "Mysticism...." offers her opinion:
"The [early] Christian religion, by its very nature, had a profoundly
mystical side....St. Paul and the author of the Fourth Gospel are obvious
instances of mystics of the first rank amongst its earliest
missionaries...." Add to that Paul's reports of visionary experiences, the
shinning light on the road to Damascus (Acts 9 & 22), and being caught up
into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:1-6--3rd out of 7 I assume).

I think Paul's claim to a higher form of being an apostle is based on his
mystical perspective. Important is to understand that this perspective is
an epistemological determination in the sense of real and ultimate knowledge
that is acquired from direct intuition with divine reality, which is not
acquired by those not "attuned" to perceive this truth. Thus I see his
meaning in regard to the "weak" as those without the developed ability, as
"initiates," contrasted with those with the developed ability, the "strong."

Where he may have been exposed to these ideas, I refer to Platonism (and the
neo extension): Plato's allegory of the cave. Interpreting Plato in terms
of his--Paul's--own religious paradigm: God transcends all reason, beyond
the powers of both comprehension and conceiving. In his later more
religious orientation, Plato wrote in Timaeus: "Therefore it is an
impossible task both to discover the creator and father of this whole
universe and to publish the discovery of him in words for all to understand
[Timaeus]. "a light suddenly breaks upon the soul as from a kindled flame,
and once born keeps alive of itself....Only to a few men is the exposition
of these things of any profit, and they only need a slight indication of
them for their own discovery." [Letters] Hence, also the Lutheran
connection: Luther--verification through paradox, non-rational so far as
being irrational--faith as the unique power of the soul which unites people
with God. This is Luther, not the ecclesiastic system that became the
Lutheran religion.

Paul has a good vocabulary--quite Platonic: not just gnosis, but
epignosis--"profound knowledge" (Rom. 3-20). Union with
Christ--enedusasthe, being enveloped (2 Cor. 5:4; Gal. 3:27). Conformed
(summorphizomenos) in morphe--true reality, Platonic form (eidos). The real
source of truth, knowledge. The psuchikos are those defined as "the natural
man" (as in 1 Cor. 2:14, not really so much "unspiritual" as not knowing
through spiritual intuition/inspiration)--aka "the weak." --One who "does
not receive the things of God's spirit." Being transformed is a change of
morphe (metamorphousthe), the renewing (anakainwsei) of the mind (Rom.
12:2). The mind. Perception to knowledge, without being tied up with
sensory perception--aka "the strong"--the pneumatikos. --those who have
arrived through experience of union with Christ, the pneumatics, one who
"discerns all things" (anakrinei panta) (v. 15). The psychics perceive
spiritual discerning as foolishness because they do not understand it; not
having had the experience, they rely on normal intuition (like fold
psychology) and rationality. 1 Cor. 2:6-7: "...we speak wisdom among the
perfect (telioi) but not wisdom of this age....we speak of God's wisdom
(sophian) in mystery (mustereio) having been hidden which God predestined
before the ages for our glory." Who are "the perfect"? Paul wants all his
converts to "become mightly empowered (dunamei krataiwthenai) through the
spirit in the inner man" (Eph. 3:16). Through my paradigm I interpret this
to refer the mind for the purpose of realizing the truth through mystical
intuition, the difference between night (the shadows) and day (the real
thing).

But, the strong are not to be overbearing with the weak, no expression of
importance: "we have it, you don't."
Thus tolerance for the weak, maybe even helping them see the "way" to
truth--that musterion which provides dunamis--the power of the mind to
realize truth and then act on it. The weak are the initiates, those on the
way through the learning and transformation process. I sense that Paul
realizes there are very few of the strong. I don't think nomos, per se, is
involved here, except perhaps merely as a "fall back" in lieu of the intense
difficulty of mystical union--hard work, more difficult that following laws.

Ecclesiastical religion downplays this--those nasty gnostics. (Of course,
there's that perennial epistemological problem amongst varied claims to
truth: whose truth is the real truth?) It has to in order to survive, and
of course there's that epistemological problem. FWIW.

I have nothing original here. This is the interpretation of some others.

Richard Godwin.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Brandon Mannix" <Ryan.Mannix AT pepperdine.edu>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:53 PM
Subject: [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page