did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?

[Mopsus]

Some believe Jesus the body was created by the demiurge because the demiurge became aware of the Father's intention to send spiritual Christ to redeem mankind.

Ugh. Gnosticism. One of the most depressing and illogical philosophies ever thought of.

Why? Because it takes mind/body dualism to its logical conclusion? In that case, Gnostic Christianity is more logical than Pauline Christianity, not less.

[Mopsus]

Because the idea that creation is inherently flawed is depressing

Though not inconsistent with personal observation and its logical inferences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As as is the idea that God, who turns free will off and on at other points in The Bible, wouldn't be able to prevent The Fall.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

In that case, you have as big a bone to pick with Pauline Christianity as with Gnosticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which of Paul's epistles do you consider questionable? Because the flesh is condemned in Romans and Galatians, too.

[Mopsus]

The verses that I had in mind were Romans 7:14-25 (which makes a clear distinction between mind/spirit and body) and Galatians 5:19-21 (which lists a number of "deadly sins", not all of which are fleshly in nature, but which are all attributed to "the flesh").

Belief in dualism is pretty much essential for Pauline Christianity to make any sense. Otherwise, what was the point of Jesus's death? To compensate for humanity's sins? Not only is that illogical, I find little indication that Paul believed that. What I do find is the belief that man's flesh is naturally inclined to depravity, and anyone who lives according to his flesh will die as a result. However, what Jesus's physical death and spiritual resurrection offers is a model of transcendence, and it's that model that Christians must imitate if they want to gain everlasting life.

[Mopsus]

I'm not arguing that the resurrected Jesus was composed of spirit. What I'm arguing (or, more accurately, what I believe that Paul was arguing) is that the punishment for living in the flesh is death (which Jesus suffered, as he was spirit made flesh), but the reward for living in the spirit is life that overcomes death (as Jesus proved with his resurrection). You could argue that references to "the flesh" and "the spirit" are metaphorical, but it seems to me that the only reason that you would is if you were attempting to reconcile an attachment to mainstream Christianity with an aversion to dualism.

[Mopsus]

Adoptionism is hardly mainstream Christianity.

No, but I was under the impression that you were defending Pauline Christianity (specifically, from my accusation that it - and thus, mainstream Christianity - merely takes its dualism to a less extreme conclusion than Gnosticism does).

[Mopsus]

The impression I get from reading Paul is that he uses pneuma-sarx to frame his argument in a form easily digestible by his Greek speaking audience. Had he been writing in Chinese instead I think he'd have used yin-yang for the same purposes, tho it would be just as wrong to overidentify his views as aligning with a strict interpretation of Daoist philosophy. Paul is not Mani, nor is he a Gnostic. I'll grant that many Christians do take a strongly dualistic view of Paul's writings, but I don't agree. It's a mistake to read into Paul concepts that weren't fully developed until after him.

Don't these two sentences contradict one another?

[Mopsus]

...it might seem like a distinction without a difference.

It does. I mean, why would Paul set up a dichotomy between flesh and spirit (or man and the divine) unless he thought that the interests of the two were in conflict? For instance, Paul explained his abandonment of Mosaic Law by writing that said Law was binding on those who lived in the flesh, and so was inapplicable to those who were dead to the flesh and alive in the spirit. Even if we were to read "the flesh" as "the way of man" and "the spirit" as "the way of God", that wouldn't change the fact that Paul belonged to a type of dualism that any Gnostic could appreciate.

[Mopsus]

I think an honest Gnostic would think that Paul was on the right track but that he hadn't gone far enough.

Which has been my contention all along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These verses (and the verses that follow) make it clear how Paul saw the Law: As something that was intended to guard the faithful from sin until Christ was revealed. Now that that has happened, the Law has been outmoded.

[Mopsus]

I'm under the impression that Paul saw the Law itself as inherently just, but because of human shortcomings, he thought that it was destined to yield unsatisfactory results. Therefore, the best thing that a person could do would be to accept salvation though Jesus Christ, but as long as there are people who live in the flesh, they ought to be faithful to the Law.

Potentially relevant verses:

You must be logged in to read this quote.