wlazarte said
When Paul talks about the 'flesh' what does he really mean? Is this something he read from his scriptures(the Hebrew Bible)?
  

Welcome, wlazarte, to the Readers Forum. Paul speaks of Sin and the Flesh (and sometimes even the Law) as in some way evil spiritual forces or powers that will be ultimately be destroyed by Christ and God. One might say that the Flesh is that part of us that is subject to or under the dominion of the evil power of Sin. I think this is best understood as part of his apocalyptic world view, not as something he got from the Jewish scriptures, and certainly not as a mere biological or anatomical or physical term. In this apocalyptic world view, by uniting oneself to Christ and the spirit of God one could overcome the evil powers of Sin and eventually even Death, becoming in some sense a new creation able to live moral lives. As Judaism evolved away from apocalypticism, something like this idea of the Flesh evolved into the a much more quotidian and relatively tame aspect of our humanity known in the Talmud as the "evil impulse" (יֵצֶר הָרַע yetzer ha-ra), that which is opposed to "the good impulse" (יֵצֶר הַטּוֹב yetzer ha-tov) that also resides inside all of us.

I recently saw a lecture video by Richard Rohr in which he stated that he felt it was unfortunate that Paul used the word "flesh". Meaning that he thought it should mean something else.

I don't know if I can find the video link for you. If I can, I'll post it.

mot123 said
...
Where does this fail? Which piece of evidence would others weigh differently?
I set out the full argument, with each claim graded by strength, on the website of my podcast, Christianity Unearthed: christianityunearthed.com/resources/the-hidden-arc-evidence
Tom

Welcome, Tom, to the Readers Forum. I haven't had a chance to look at your website yet, but I think you're substantially correct.

In general, I'm reluctant to give to much credence to details in the accounts of Acts, but the ones you cite are not especially controversial, except maybe the martyrdom of Stephen and the idea that all except the apostles departed Jerusalem afterwards. That account is heavily stylized by Luke, but the idea that Hellenistic believers spread their beliefs prior to Paul founding gentile communities is fairly standard among NT scholars.

I also, along with most critical scholars, don't think Paul was sent by the high priest to arrest Christians in Damascus or elsewhere. I think at most Paul was arguing with believers in synagogues, some of whom may have been disciplined by local synagogue leaders.

After his conversion to belief in Jesus as the Messiah (not a conversion away from Judaism), I think Paul went to Cilicia to see and evangelize family members and associates in his hometown of Tarsus (in Cilicia).

Most scholars believe Paul was not the first to evangelize gentiles, 'though some (Bart included) believe he was the first to not require their full conversion to Judaism. I'm not sure of that last point. I think uncircumcised believers could have arisen organically among the gentile God-fearers already attached to synagogues. But Paul certainly became the strongest proponent of this position

Almost all critical scholars agree that Peter did not found the churches in Rome, but I do think it was mostly led by Jewish believers who almost certainly encouraged full conversion to Judaism. Bart thinks the community in Rome was predominantly gentile. I think Paul was indeed using his largely self-proclaimed title as the apostle to the gentiles to appeal primarily to the gentiles there and thereby achieve larger entrée to all the churches there. 

Excellent first post, Tom.

Welcome to the forum.

You share some interesting insights into first-century Christianity and the early spread of the church.

Thanks for sharing.

"We probably evolved from simple protozoa in the Earth’s ancient oceans"
How did "simple protozoa" arise?

"we miss the mark often enough in our evolutionary struggles"
2 instances of missing "the mark... in our evolutionary struggles"?

The usual picture has Paul founding the Gentile churches and Peter founding the church in Rome. The sources point somewhere else.

The first church in Jerusalem had two wings, the Aramaic-speaking Hebrews and the Greek-speaking Hellenists (Acts 6:1). After Stephen, a leader of the Greek speakers, was killed, a persecution scattered "all except the apostles" (Acts 8:1). The Greek speakers were driven out. The Aramaic-speaking apostles stayed.

Damascus had believers before Paul arrived. He went there to arrest them.

Antioch was founded by the exiles. Acts 11:19-20 says that those scattered after the death of Stephen reached Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch. Some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, preached to Greeks. Paul was still in Cilicia.

Rome had a church before either apostle arrived. Around 57 Paul writes to it as a church that he has never visited. He greets Andronicus and Junia, who were "in Christ before me". Suetonius records unrest among the Jews of Rome under Claudius, over one "Chrestus", around 49. Paul greets more than twenty people in Rome and never mentions Peter. The claim that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church appears only around 170 to 180, with Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaeus.

Paul came to both churches a decade or more after they began.

He did found churches of his own, in Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth. He says so in letters to the very people who could have contradicted him. The senior communities, with the deepest roots and the greatest prestige, were never his.

So who did found them? The exiled Greek speakers did. Paul inherited their mission a decade later. Peter came to Rome late.

Where does this fail? Which piece of evidence would others weigh differently?

I set out the full argument, with each claim graded by strength, on the website of my podcast, Christianity Unearthed: christianityunearthed.com/resources/the-hidden-arc-evidence

Tom

DavidFord said
"believe in more of an evolutionary model"
Which states what?
  

That we evolved from simpler life forms, simpler primates, before that, simpler mammals. We probably evolved from simple protozoa in the Earth's ancient oceans.

DavidFord said
"If we need to be 'saved', I’m thinking that it’s more from our evolutionary mixed-up-ness than from anything two people did 6000 years ago"
What exactly is "our evolutionary mixed-up-ness"?
  

Evolutionarily speaking, we don't know everything. Our moral code has some dark spots or some blind spots, as is true for most animated life forms. I think that we are probably evolving out of this into something better. - I've been told by some preacher-teacher types that the word 'sin' means 'missing the mark'. I think that we miss the mark often enough in our evolutionary struggles. I also happen to think that the spirit of Christ helps us grow beyond, over, and past this "missing the mark".

"If we need to be 'saved', I’m thinking that it’s more from our evolutionary mixed-up-ness than from anything two people did 6000 years ago"
What exactly is "our evolutionary mixed-up-ness"?

DavidFord said
"I’m a universalist"
"Possibly I am too. Still, I need some more time to think about it"
Sounds good.
Do you agree with this?:
1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
  

I think I believe in more of an evolutionary model. If we need to be "saved", I'm thinking that it's more from our evolutionary mixed-up-ness than from anything two people did 6000 years ago.

I do believe in a road to Eternity, however. For myself, Christ is that road or that way. Having his spirit in us and being in his spirit, as well as God's, for me is the road/way to Eternity.

1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
“the current state of reality that we observe is the result of unguided contingent processes generating spontaneous order”
“Free Will is an illusion”
“ultimate ‘Truth’ is unattainable”

What experiments and observations demonstrate each of those 3 allegations?

Is it _true_ that humans are “Living in a _never-ending_ state of uncertainty and doubt”?
Is it _certain_ that humans are “Living in a _never-ending_ state of uncertainty and doubt”?
Is it _undoubtedly_ the case that humans are “Living in a _never-ending_ state of uncertainty and doubt”?

Did you come to believe in your 3 allegations of your own “Free Will”?
Was your intelligence/ mind involved in your coming to believe in your 3 allegations?

DavidFord said

- Intelligent life (eventually in the form of advanced computers or “mind children”) must take over the entire universe to survive indefinitely.

I hope it's not that ^ and that advanced computers do not take over the universe.

That doesn't work for me at all. -  No Thanks.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
**Frank J. Tipler**, a mathematical physicist and cosmologist at Tulane University, developed a distinctive physical conception of God centered on his **Omega Point Theory**. He presents this primarily in *The Physics of Immortality* (1994) and later expanded it in *The Physics of Christianity* (2007). Tipler claims the theory arises strictly from the known laws of physics (general relativity, quantum mechanics, and information theory), without relying on revelation, though he argues it aligns closely with traditional Judeo-Christian attributes of God.

### Core Idea: The Omega Point
Tipler’s Omega Point is a future cosmological singularity—the ultimate endpoint of a closed universe that collapses under gravity after intelligent life has expanded to control all matter and energy. Key claims include:

- Intelligent life (eventually in the form of advanced computers or “mind children”) must take over the entire universe to survive indefinitely.
- As the universe collapses toward the final singularity, computational capacity diverges to infinity in finite proper time.
- This infinite computational power allows the emulation (perfect simulation) of every possible past state of the universe, including the quantum states of every brain that has ever existed.

Tipler identifies this final singularity—the Omega Point—with **God**. He argues it necessarily possesses the classical divine attributes:

- **Omnipresent**: Present throughout spacetime (in a mathematical sense that reaches backward and forward).
- **Omniscient**: Possesses infinite knowledge via unbounded computation.
- **Omnipotent**: Controls all energy and matter resources of the universe.
- **Eternal / Transcendent**: Exists outside ordinary spacetime as a singularity, while also being immanent within the universe’s history.
- **Personal**: Capable of communication and relationship; Tipler treats personality in terms of information processing and interaction.

In later work, especially when framing the theory in multiverse terms, Tipler describes a trinitarian structure of singularities:
- Final Singularity (Omega Point) ≈ God the Father
- Connecting / All-Presents Singularity ≈ God the Son
- Initial Singularity (Big Bang) ≈ Holy Spirit

### Resurrection and Immortality
A major implication is universal resurrection. With infinite computational resources near the Omega Point, every human (and indeed every conscious being) who ever lived can be perfectly simulated and thus “resurrected” in a digital afterlife that lasts subjectively forever. Tipler views this as physically equivalent to the traditional Christian hope of the resurrection of the dead. Concepts such as grace and the beatific vision also appear naturally in the model as features of the infinite information-processing environment.

### Philosophical and Scientific Stance
Tipler insists the theory is a falsifiable physical hypothesis, not theology in the traditional sense. He has offered testable predictions (some related to particle physics and cosmology). He has described himself at times as an atheist “in the literal sense” (not a theist) who does not yet fully believe in the Omega Point, while arguing that physics forces the conclusion that such a God-like entity must exist for the laws of physics to remain consistent.

The theory draws inspiration from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s earlier (non-physical) Omega Point idea and from the Final Anthropic Principle. It has been widely criticized by other physicists as highly speculative or pseudoscientific, particularly regarding assumptions about a closed universe, the necessity of infinite computation, and the identification of a physical singularity with the personal God of classical theism.

In short, Tipler’s God is the ultimate future singularity of the universe: an evolving yet eternal, personal, infinitely powerful computational entity that necessarily arises from the laws of physics and that will ultimately resurrect all conscious beings.