Anti-Gnosticism

This is not a long post; just a reflection. There’s a passage in Romans that always struck me as strange: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from Gxd, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by Gxd. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what Gxd has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval, for it is Gxd’s agent for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the agent of Gxd to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are Gxd’s agents, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to ...

I feel like I glossed over Romans 1:18–25 (NRSVUE) in my previous post : For the wrath of Gxd is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. For what can be known about Gxd is plain to them, because Gxd has made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world Gxd’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things Gxd has made. So they are without excuse, or though they knew Gxd, they did not honor him as Gxd or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal Gxd for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore Gxd gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. They exchanged the truth about Gxd for a lie an...

I’ve been interested in Pauline theology for a while: first, for his emphasis on community organization against the norms of 1 st century Greco-Roman politeia ; second, his relatively egalitarian and universal outlook on gender/sex and nationality (in as much as nationality could be said to exist at the time whether on the basis of ancestry, geography, or politeia ); third, his self-understanding as a Pharisee and apostle of Jesus to the Gentiles, which was contrary—or at least orthogonal—to the aims of James’ isolationist assembly in Jerusalem. I also think that Paul’s authentic epistles encode the particular viewpoints of himself and of the first Christians more accurately than either the synoptic Gospels (including Acts) or the inauthentic epistles, which Eisenbaum characterizes as an effort to both discredit the Jerusalem assembly and frame Paul as a convert from Judaism to Christianity. So there’s a lot to glean from Paul and, whether or not we disagree with his conclusions, ...