Only paradigmatic parallelism may explain the birth of a pre-existent Jesus in Paul

[Giuseppe]

McGrath assumes a pre-existence and a birth for Jesus in Paul.The presence of two things so in contradiction between them would point to anti-marcionite interpolation (if there is a thing about which Marcion couldn't absolutely waste his time, was a Paul with a carnal birth for Jesus).

At any case, assuming for mere sake of discussion the authenticity of the relatives passages (basically Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4), my memory goes to this McGrath's observation about paradigmatic parallelism.

There is, however, a common element of ancient thought which has important implications for the understanding of Ascension of Isaiah. In 7:10 we read, “And as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what (is) in the firmament is here on earth.” As Carrier notes, “the narrative goes out of its way to explain that the firmament contains copies of everything on earth.” And yet, presumably because of his aim to present a case for mythicism, Carrier does not discuss the natural implication of this: that even if the celestial Beloved only descended as far as the firmament, and was crucified there by demons, this would mirror some corresponding occurrence on earth. This is reminiscent of what we find depicted or hinted at in a number of Docetic texts. While the earthly Jesus is crucified, the real Jesus is seen above the cross, a spiritual being whom they cannot harm, laughing at the fools who think they have genuinely crucified him.

(my bold)

Naturally if something happened in heaven for Jesus, then this would mirror some corresponding occurrence on earth.

Paul talks already about a "body of Christ" on the earth: the totality of the Pauline Christians. What need of an earthly Jesus distinct from this body ?

Therefore McGrath's argument fails by his own logic.

So Earl Doherty:

One may ask why it is that Paul bothers to say that Christ was born of a woman, since this should be an obvious biological fact to his readers. His point may be that he wishes to stress the paradigmatic parallel between believers — who are themselves born of woman, as well as born under the law of the old covenant which Paul wants to abrogate — and Christ himself. Only through counterpart characteristics can paradigmatic effects exists. But such relationships by definition operate between higher and lower worlds, between the spiritual and the material. It follows, then, that Christ and his features must belong to the higher world, in order to be in appropriate counterpart to those of Paul's readers.

(The Jesus Puzzle, p. 124-125, my bold)

[Giuseppe]

Curiously, the facts of the 70 CE answered in advance to the question I have put above:

Paul talks already about a "body of Christ" on the earth: the totality of the Pauline Christians. What need of an earthly Jesus distinct from this body ?

An earthly Jesus becomes necessary to allegorize the entire body of the believers in a time of persecutions.

Paul didn't need an earthly Jesus, because he didn't suffer a time of persecutions (at the contrary of the Christians who lived after the 70 CE).

Don't I accidentally stumble upon an argument to think that Paul lived before the 70 CE?

[GakuseiDon]

McGrath assumes a pre-existence and a birth for Jesus in Paul.The presence of two things so in contradiction between them...

They are only contradictions if the start of the person's existence was at birth. But if the person pre-existed, then was born as a baby, how is that a contradiction?

This is Tertullian in one of his apologies to the pagans:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html

But when you [pagans] say that they only make men into gods after their death, do you not admit that before death the said gods were merely human?...
...
What excuse can be found for that insolence which classes the dead of whatever sort as equal with the gods? Even to your princes there are assigned the services of priests and sacred ceremonies, and chariots, and cars, and the honours of the solisternia and the lectisternia, holidays and games. Rightly enough, since heaven is open to them; still it is none the less contumelious to the gods: in the first place, because it could not possibly be decent that other beings should be numbered with them, even if it has been given to them to become divine after their birth; in the second place, because the witness who beheld the man caught up into heaven would not forswear himself so freely and palpably before the people, if it were not for the contempt felt about the objects sworn to both by himself and those who allow the perjury...
...
The particular character of a posterity is shown by the original founders of the race--mortal beings (come) from mortals, earthly ones from earthly; step after step comes in due relation--marriage, conception, birth--country, settlements, kingdoms, all give the clearest proofs. They, therefore who cannot deny the birth of men, must also admit their death; they who allow their mortality must not suppose them to be gods...

Besides, if they were able to make gods of themselves after their death, pray tell me why they chose to be in an inferior condition at first? Or, again, if there is no one who made them gods, how can they be said to have been made such, if they could only have been made by some one else?

Note that Tertullian doesn't refer to Jesus or Christ once in this apology, not even to show why such accusations wouldn't apply to Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand your point, frankly. Birth may fit pre-existence when the birth is only docetic, only a fiction (which is probably the case with Paganism). Since a real birth implies by definition the denial of pre-existence.

[schillingklaus]

There were no persecutions before the times of Empereor Decius.