"Flesh=Bad, Spirit=Good" vs Christianity

[Rimbo]

This is sometimes mistakenly called "Gnosticism," but Gnosticism is just one expression of the same general idea.

Although this idea is the antithesis of orthodox Christian theology, it somehow has managed to hang around Christianity for a long time, and persists to this day. (These assumptions are open for discussion as well.)

Either way, how did it get into Christianity in the first place, and why has it stuck around Christianity for so long?

(Note: If the only thing you can contribute to this discussion is "There is no god so this is stupid" or a similar idea and just can't resist posting such a comment, I recommend you switch to a career in Marketing, then do nothing but listen to Bill Hicks recordings until you feel compelled to obey.)

[Robert Sharp]

I'm a little unclear on how it is NOT part of Christianity. Could you give what you see as the orthodox Christian view, so I know where you are coming from?

[Flowers]

The Vinegar Tasters

[Ryan A]

Prime Mover, Great Chain of Being, Aristotelian syllogisms

The Apostle Paul's writings certainly lend themselves to a flesh=bad, spirit=good reading as well.

[Andrew Mayer]

Paul definitely came roaring in.

If you read the Gnostic Gospels Pagels makes the argument that it was the secretive nature of the Gnostic sects teachings that doomed it.

According to her Christianity's big secret to success is that you don't have to understand the doctrines in order to become a member of it. All you have to is "accept Jesus into your heart" and you were in.

As for the doctrines, how much do you know about the Council at Nicea?

[Steve Canyon]

Yeah, I've known about the Gnostics, but never really understood the Church's problem with them. If someone could explain the issues, that would be great. The Council at Nicea page on Wikipedia doesn't really shed any light on it for me.

[SpoofyChop]

All you have to is "accept Jesus into your heart" and you were in.

The concept of "accepting Jesus into your heart" is extremely recent and completely unscriptural. Christ himself said to the disciples "you did not choose me but I chose you."

If he said this to the 12 disciples, how much more does it apply to average people today? Nobody "chooses" Jesus or "accepts" Jesus and no matter how much some of the modern backwards "evangelicals" try to spin it this is baloney. Christ mercifully grants people faith in him by the working of the Gospel.

Also, there is no possible way to read St. Paul and determine that he is setting up a flesh=bad, spirit=good dichotomy. Does he condemn worldy desires? Yes. Does he claim that the flesh is bad or evil. Not at all. With teachings like "if you marry you will do well, if you remain unmarried you will do better" he clearly demonstrates that although our mortal existence is blessed by God, there are certainly problems and issues that arise because of it. He teaches that single people will be able to focus more time on God and married people will be concerned about their spouse and families but he still says in effect "it's all good."

Gnosticism is miles away from this view.

[Steve Canyon]

The concept of "accepting Jesus into your heart" is extremely recent and completely unscriptural. Christ himself said to the disciples "you did not choose me but I chose you."

If he said this to the 12 disciples, how much more does it apply to average people today? Nobody "chooses" Jesus or "accepts" Jesus and no matter how much some of the modern backwards "evangelicals" try to spin it this is baloney. Christ mercifully grants people faith in him by the working of the Gospel.

Also, there is no possible way to read St. Paul and determine that he is setting up a flesh=bad, spirit=good dichotomy. Does he condemn worldy desires? Yes. Does he claim that the flesh is bad or evil. Not at all. With teachings like "if you marry you will do well, if you remain unmarried you will do better" he clearly demonstrates that although our mortal existence is blessed by God, there are certainly problems and issues that arise because of it. He teaches that single people will be able to focus more time on God and married people will be concerned about their spouse and families but he still says in effect "it's all good."

Gnosticism is miles away from this view.

Your mom tell you all of that or were you planning to cite some scripture?

[Andrew Mayer]

The concept of "accepting Jesus into your heart" is extremely recent and completely unscriptural. Christ himself said to the disciples "you did not choose me but I chose you."

Sorry, I was being colloquial. But the message is the same. You're a chrisitan the moment you accept god's forgiveness as expressed through Christ's sacrifice. I guess in some cases baptism is mandatory. But the whole idea of getting the big bonus right at the beginning is one of the defining features of Christianity as we know it. The Gnostics didn't work that way.

What really pissed the early Christians off was that the Gnostics could deny Christ if they needed to to save their lives. This mightily cheesed off the other Christians who were keeping the lions well fed.

As for the rest, there's a big fat entry on gnosticism in the wikipedia as well...

[Ryan A]

Also, there is no possible way to read St. Paul and determine that he is setting up a flesh=bad, spirit=good dichotomy. Does he condemn worldy desires? Yes. Does he claim that the flesh is bad or evil. Not at all.

I beg to differ

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

[Steve Canyon]

Sorry, I was being colloquial. But the message is the same. You're a chrisitan the moment you accept god's forgiveness as expressed through Christ's sacrifice. I guess in some cases baptism is mandatory. But the whole idea of getting the big bonus right at the beginning is one of the defining features of Christianity as we know it. The Gnostics didn't work that way.

What really pissed the early Christians off was that the Gnostics could deny Christ if they needed to to save their lives. This mightily cheesed off the other Christians who were keeping the lions well fed.

As for the rest, there's a big fat entry on gnosticism in the wikipedia as well...

What does the Council at Nicea have to do with the Gnostics.

[Ryan A]

What does the Council at Nicea have to do with the Gnostics.

Dude, my goole-fu sucks, even I don't suck that bad

[Steve Canyon]

I beg to differ

Good for you for not being snarky like me, Ryan A. I had meant to post something like this but decided to just go for the cheap one liner, instead. S-Chop's post affected me as if he were one of those snarky Jehovah's Witness, early on a Saturday morning.

Not that you can't believe whatever you like, S-Chop. But it's just one view in a crowd.

[Steve Canyon]

Dude, my goole-fu sucks, even I don't suck that bad

Does that stuff make any sense to you, Ryan? I guess I am feeling particularly dense tonight, but that looks like the same stuff that was on the Wiki page. It's basically incomprehensible.

[Ryan A]

Does that stuff make any sense to you, Ryan? I guess I am feeling particularly dense tonight, but that looks like the same stuff that was on the Wiki page. It's basically incomprehensible.

I just wanted to show off how I can actually find stuff on Google sometimes... after my rather embarrassing show of asking for help finding "The Beatles" font here only to have nine hundered thousand people point out what an easy freaking search it was.

But... it was all for naught, as that link is decidedly biased. My google-fu... it is the suck.

[Ryan A]

Yeah, I've known about the Gnostics, but never really understood the Church's problem with them. If someone could explain the issues, that would be great. The Council at Nicea page on Wikipedia doesn't really shed any light on it for me.

Ok. I suck at Google. I give up. So I'm sorry, but I don't have any links to give you as I'm operating from memory here.

Basically, the problem with the Gnostics is that they taught that all matter is evil. This diverges from conventional interpretation of scripture that holds that all matter, as created by a perfect God, began as good, but that all of creation has been warped/twisted/cursed by when sin entered the scene.

So, to reference the Pauline text I quoted earlier in this thread, orthodox (small "o") christianity teaches that our physical selves are corrupted by the curse (sin nature) and can only be sanctified by the miraculous power of Christ. That's why the gnostic belief that all matter is evil is heresy because creation, made by a holy God, would not be evil... just polluted from its originally pristine state.

Now maybe somebody with a better memory or better google skills can swoop in and correct me, but that's sort of how I think it goes. Maybe.

[Raife]

Now maybe somebody with a better memory or better google skills can swoop in and correct me, but that's sort of how I think it goes. Maybe.

I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but I thought that this website explained it pretty well.

[Andrew Mayer]

Basically, the problem with the Gnostics is that they taught that all matter is evil.

Well, they believe that part of God split off and went insane (Rex Mundi, or "King of the World") and created the universe as part of his madness.

Abraxas, the sane god, sent Jesus as a messenger to explain to humanity that the ture spirit of the universe still loves us, and that salvation is coming.

[Jason McCullough]

Man, I'm having Warhammer 30k flashbacks with this thread.

[Andrew Mayer]

Man, I'm having Warhammer 30k flashbacks with this thread.

I'm hoping those aren't psychic flashbacks. I have the local Inquisitor's number on my speed dial.

Oh, and you're off by 10,000 years.

[Rimbo]

Robert Sharp: For matter not being evil, there's Genesis 1, and the repeated "God created it, and said it was good." And for spirits not being good, there are the demon possessions, Satan, etc. Beyond the mythology, you have the doctrine of Christ being "all Man and all God," implying that there isn't anything essentially wrong with being a man, although clearly there are certain non-universal (but otherwise orthodox) doctrines, e.g. the immaculate conception and Original Sin, which do seem to suggest "flesh bad! flesh very bad!" :)

Ryan A: Kudos to you for being the first to actually support your argument. Also, tell me more about "Aristotilean syllogisms?"

SpoofyChop: From my recollection of Paul's epistles, I think that you should have little trouble finding ample evidence to support your point of view. In fact, you will probably crush him.

Steve Canyon: I'm with you; both the essenes site and the wikipedia entry make casual references to events and doctrines with which I have no familiarity, either. They're both written assuming the reader has a solid divinity education. And perhaps that's necessary?

My hypothesis, which I confess is not well-informed (thus this thread, to hopefully inform myself better), is that the basic idea came into Christianity through Judaism, which itself acquired it from Greece (during Alexander's "hellenization" of Mycaenea), who got it from Plato.

[bago]

What do you think happened after the first 300 years after the death of "christus"?

[Gav]

My hypothesis, which I confess is not well-informed (thus this thread, to hopefully inform myself better), is that the basic idea came into Christianity through Judaism, which itself acquired it from Greece (during Alexander's "hellenization" of Mycaenea), who got it from Plato.

It's a very non-Jewish idea. There are all sorts of places in the classical Jewish sources which say that it's a sin to pass up a legitimate pleasure just for the sake of ascetism. (But, of course, moderation in all things--one shouldn't pass up a good meal, but also shouldn't be a glutton). That's obviously not to say that you can't find find Jewish ascetics, but it certainly has always been a minority idea.

It also seems to me to be a very non-Greek idea, but my reading there is more limited. (Which is not to say there weren't individual Greek philosohers who were very ascetic--I just don't think the idea was ever that wide-spread)

Gav

[Ryan A]

I think it's difficult to classify a concept like this as "greek" or "non-greek" as far as cultural values and morality go. It is relatively easy, on the other hand, to characterize the thought process behind it as definitely very greek.

The Logic of the Great Chain of Being

Much of which is based on the classical (and therefore neo classical) concept of the Prime Mover

Just to make myself clear here, I'm attempting to answer Rimbo's initial question of "how/when did the concept of flesh=bad spirit=good enter chritianity?" I do not personally agree with such a stark dichotomoy nor does orthodox christianity. The passage from Romans 8 that I quoted earlier was simply to provide an example of scripture that can easily be misinterpreted as "flesh=bad and spirit=good."

But since this thread wasn't started to poll us on our personal religious/philosophical beliefs, I'll leave that out.

[SpoofyChop]

I beg to differ

Well you can differ all you want but you are simply misunderstanding Paul's overall message.

I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

The fact that those who marry will "do well" and not sin completely refutes the idea that Paul believed that the flesh was "evil" in anything close to the way the Gnostics meant it. What Paul presented throughout all his letters was the idea that the flesh and the world have been corrupted by sin, not changed into something inherently evil.

[Ryan A]

Dude. Have you read my posts? I don't believe in the gnostic heresy. I'm simply pointing out how it's possible to arrive at those conclusions through a simple and selective literal reading of scripture. Which I quoted. Clearly, if you read and understand all of the pauline epistles, you will understand he's not claiming that all matter is evil. But you said "there's no possible way to read St. Paul" to get that conclusion and I showed you a passage that, if taken literally, can *easily* be interpreted to set up a flesh=bad, spirit=good dichotomy.

Also, there is no possible way to read St. Paul and determine that he is setting up a flesh=bad, spirit=good dichotomy.

[SpoofyChop]

Dude. Have you read my posts? I don't believe in the gnostic heresy. I'm simply pointing out how it's possible to arrive at those conclusions through a simple and selective literal reading of scripture. Which I quoted. Clearly, if you read and understand all of the pauline epistles, you will understand he's not claiming that all matter is evil. But you said "there's no possible way to read St. Paul" to get that conclusion and I showed you a passage that, if taken literally, can *easily* be interpreted to set up a flesh=bad, spirit=good dichotomy.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Anyway, maybe it's just semantic, but when you say that those verses "can *easily* be interpreted to set up a flesh=bad, spirit=good dichotomy" I still don't agree.

Perhaps I'm really splitting hairs in a way that will annoy people but I would agree with the statement "can *easily* be MISinterpreted..."

But then again pretty much everything in the bible can easily be misinterpreted by people like the Gnostics and the many hundreds of other cults and promoters of heresies over, really, the 5 thousand year history of God's people.

2 Timothy 4:3 captures this problem succinctly:

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

[Ryan A]

Perhaps I'm really splitting hairs in a way that will annoy people but I would agree with the statement "can *easily* be MISinterpreted..."

Works for me!

2 Timothy 4:3 captures this problem succinctly:

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

The thing is.... the gnostic doctrines don't really suit the desires of any sane human being. It's funny how just about every misinterpretation of scripture leads to a less enjoyable life than if people just stuck with orthodoxy.

[Rimbo]

Yeah, Ryan A, I see your point; some of what Paul says can be and has been misinterpreted as supporting the "flesh bad, spirit good" dichotomy. That's definitely part of what's kept the idea around for so long.

I wasn't meaning to say that the idea came from Greek culture as much as it came from Greek philosophers, whose ideas entered through (at first) Alexander the Great and later Rome... the whole Hellenization thing: Hellenization of Judaism

If Hellenism was a culture and Judaism a religion (in itself a questionable assertion), many aspects of Hellenism were not only irrelevant to the Jewish religion, but could be beneficial to Jews whether in religion or society at large. A Jewish philosopher, Aristobulus, in c 150 BC, claimed that the philosophy of Aristotle and the whole of Greek culture was derived from the scriptures!

Aristobulus obviously made too many visits to the poppy farm, but would anyone know of him today if his ideas hadn't gained some traction?

[Rimbo]

Oh, and briefly, I can see how Gnosticism could be attractive: Some Gnostics went overboard into thinking that, since flesh was dirty anyway, they could commit any fleshly sin they wanted and there would be no repercussions. Sometimes it led to ascetism, and sometimes it led to dionysian behavior.