04/25/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BI

Summary of text [comment] page 81

Schoonenberg noted that Paul wrote, “We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.”

He contrasted the I that agrees with the law with the I that is sold to sin.

Even though both ‘I’s refer to the same person, Paul rejects the latter as not I but the sin that dwells in me (Romans 7:20).

[This logic underlies the portrayal, in An Archaeology of the Fall, of the Genesis serpent acting as the projection of Eve’s own unconscious thoughts.]

04/24/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BH-2

[Paul was not a man given to over-indulgence of the appetites. He did not sell his flesh into bondage for material or sensual pleasure. He was a man given to righteousness.

So what did he do?

He sold his bones into bondage for an immaterial pleasure.

He sold his bones, which, in the Old Testament, long to stand before the Lord in righteousness, to a think^group and conscience^lacking that had already taken the metaphor and turned it into an instrument for propaganda.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees were all about ritual demands.

They were the “bones” that held Israel together. They were “bloody” servants of ‘the object that brings all subjects into organization’.]

04/21/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BH-1

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[With the previous blogs in mind, I can appreciate Paul’s stunning confession in Romans 7:14.

Paul condemns his own ‘flesh’ (that is, his own ‘flesh and bones’).]

04/20/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BG

[Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed how the word ‘religion’ veils its history.

Smith wanted get rid of the word ‘religion’ in order to bury its history.

Why?

The diverse flows of the Progressive movement had secured sovereign power. They had become (infra)sovereign religions. Since each party within the movement defined itself as ‘not religious’, despite its cult status, the term ‘religion’ became a liability.

Smith’s book is a testimony. The Progressives established their sovereign religion in the 1960s. This marks the time when the Federal Government of America became a sovereign religion.]

04/19/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BF-1

[The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’ is postmodern.

Postmodernism is founded on Ferdinand de Saussure’s scientific discovery that language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences (or symbolic orders).]

04/18/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BF-1

[Schoonenberg’s off-hand remark also places Schoonenberg as author into a historical context. His translated book, Man and Sin: A Theological View, was published by University of Notre Dame Press in 1965.

Writing in the 1960’s, Schoonenberg stood on the brink of postmodernism.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s book, The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’, was published by Macmillan Press in 1962. Smith’s book detailed how the word ‘religion’ changed meaning over the past several centuries. Smith’s book described the historic alteration of one element of a symbolic order (a system of differences). His work implies that the entire system of differences changes.]

04/17/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BE

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[With the concept of the historic twisting of the language in mind, I can appreciate Paul’s list of spiritual sins as ‘sins of the flesh and bones’.

In other words, Paul’s list is not as some quaint mis-designation, where ‘sins of the bones’ are misidentified as ‘sins of the flesh’. It is a flash of intuitive brilliance.

Paul compressed the Old Testament image of ‘flesh versus bones’, as corrupted by the (infra)sovereign religions of the ruling elites of Israel, into a contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’.

St. Paul struggled for expression in a language completely corrupted by the power-serving propaganda of (infra)sovereign religions.]

04/14/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BD

Summary of text [comment] page 81

Schoonenberg then made an interesting comment: The works of the flesh that Paul enumerated were, in a more psychological analysis, better characterized as spiritual sins.

[Schoonenberg could not explain why.

He presented this as an observation.

Evidently, Paul did not know about the psychological sciences.

Does that count against him?]

04/13/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BC

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[To me, Paul’s term ‘flesh’ encompasses both ‘flesh’ and ‘bones’. The latter terms had already been twisted by the wordsmiths of power, in order to justify social constructions that organized society according to ‘the objects that bring every subject into organization’.

What were these objects?

Ironically, they included the ritual demands of the Mosaic Law.

The ‘bones of the elite’ supported ‘the ritual demands of the Second Temple Period’s interpretation of the Mosaic Law’.]

04/12/17

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 BB

Summary of text [comment] page 81

Schoonenberg quoted St. Paul (Galatians 5:17) in discussing the opposition between flesh and spirit.

[My suggestion is this: Paul struggles against a metaphor that has been repurposed by an (infra)sovereign religion.]

The desires of the flesh [and, now, the bones] are against the spirit.

The desires of the spirit are against the flesh [and the elite ‘bones that support society’].

These statements differ, even though they sound the same.

[Does Paul’s term ‘flesh’ veil a change of meaning of the Old Testament opposition between ‘flesh and bones’ that occurred when the metaphor was usurped by an (infra)sovereign religion?

What a wonderful question.]