Well, perhaps Paul also denies that he is from the tribe of benjamin (Roman 11:1),viz, only appears to be a benjamite.
For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Well, perhaps Paul also denies that he is from the tribe of benjamin (Roman 11:1),viz, only appears to be a benjamite.
What does the difference here is ''according to flesh''. Paul doesn't say about himself that he is from Benjamin ''according to flesh'', whereas he says that Jesus is davidic ''according to flesh''.
But Paul wrote:What does the difference here is ''according to flesh''. Paul doesn't say about himself that he is from Benjamin ''according to flesh'', whereas he says that Jesus is davidic ''according to flesh''.
No, he does say that he is "according to the flesh" kinsmen to his bretheren, the Israelites whom also the "flesh Christ came."Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:18 amWhat does the difference here is ''according to flesh''. Paul doesn't say about himself that he is from Benjamin ''according to flesh'', whereas he says that Jesus is davidic ''according to flesh''. . .
And why do you not consider also:I confess that Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 are against the my mythicist view. But only them.
Like or not like should not be consideration if you look for the truth. Why do you assume first hand that Jesus was completely mythical, and not, at some time before Paul's preaching, to have been existent on earth as a real human?I don't like an earthly scenario for the mythical Jesus. So I should inquiry more that point. Whereas I am sure that Gal 4:4 is interpolated, Rom 1:3 continues to rise problems.
What you want or do not want should not be a basis for determining anything.I am partially sorry. I want that the mythical Jesus was died in the lower heavens. Not on this earth.
How do you know an earthly Jesus was obscure and silent and invisible? Did Paul tell that? NO, only that Jesus was humble....why even your humble , obscure, silent, invisible earthly Jesus is a theological Jesus derived from OT scriptures.
So I should re-value the earthly scenario for the mythical Jesus of this kind.
it is no evidence of historicity. Jesus doesn't descend from Abraham and from Jesse. These are your inferences, not of Paul. Mithra comes from Persia just as Jesus comes from Israel.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:14 pm to Giuseppe,And why do you not consider also:I confess that Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 are against the my mythicist view. But only them.
"Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27)?
Whose who are said to descend from Abraham or Jesse are earthly human beings, and not angels.it is no evidence of historicity. Jesus doesn't descend from Abraham and from Jesse. These are your inferences, not of Paul. Mithra comes from Persia just as Jesus comes from Israel.
Again, the provenance of a deity from a historical country was rather common in the ancient world. For example, Celsus talks en passant about a deity from the Tracians. When John says that ''the salvation comes from the Jews'' in the Samaritane woman episode, he doesn't mean a historical person.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:10 am to Giuseppe,Whose who are said to descend from Abraham or Jesse are earthly human beings, and not angels.it is no evidence of historicity. Jesus doesn't descend from Abraham and from Jesse. These are your inferences, not of Paul. Mithra comes from Persia just as Jesus comes from Israel.