Rules of Historical Reasoning

[hakeem]

The story of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels is entirely fiction, so that does not affect Jesus (from birth to death) as being historical or not.

Cordially, Bernard

The stories of the birth of Jesus in the Gospels and life are fiction or implausible so do affect any argument that Jesus was actually born and actually lived.

In the Gospels birth narrative it is claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and the Holy Ghost and every event in the life of Jesus [with or without a birth narrative] did not or could not have happened.

Jesus is fiction from conception to ascension.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

The stories of the birth of Jesus in the Gospels and life are fiction or implausible so do affect any argument that Jesus was actually born and actually lived.

By birth to death, I meant the earthly human Jesus. I did not mean to endorse all the gospels stories about that Jesus.

In the Gospels birth narrative it is claimed Jesus was born of a virgin and the Holy Ghost

Not in the Pauline epistles (which repeatedly give a human father to Jesus with no mention of virgin birth), and not in gMark.

and every event in the life of Jesus [with or without a birth narrative] did not or could not have happened.And how do you know

And how do you know every event in the life of Jesus is fiction?

Cordially, Bernard

[iskander]

Virgin birth is easily believed by the religious, as in Surah Maryam.

Surah Maryam
19:19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son."
19:20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
19:21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
19:22 So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Not in the Pauline epistles (which repeatedly give a human father to Jesus with no mention of virgin birth)

Like this ?
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son"

Or this ?
"If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son"

Or this ?
"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son"

Is God a human father Bernard ?


Kapyong

[Bernard Muller]

Paul said Jesus is the Son of God from before the creation. That is as heavenly deity.
However, for Jesus' incarnation, from http://historical-jesus.info/:

Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "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).

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Is God a human father . . . .

If I may embrace a line of argument that I believe Bernard himself will appreciate (since I think it echoes many of his other arguments)..... Concerning Galatians 4:4 ....

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Every human is born of a woman so why did Paul find it necessary to add this note? If Jesus had had a normal human birth then Paul would not have said that "God sent forth his Son born of a woman" but he would have used different words. He would have said "God called or anointed his Son who had been born of Joseph and Mary, or of human parents." That's what he would have said.

But what Paul said was that he sent forth his own Son. And since Paul would have worried that some readers would have interpreted that claim as meaning that Jesus was a spirit and not a real human, he added that God had sex with caused his Son to be born of a woman. So Paul knew Jesus was an ordinary man of flesh and blood, and a Jew, because Jewish line is traced through the mothers.

So Paul knew Jesus was just as historical as any other god-man in history human and also God's Son.

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,
Paul said Jesus is the Son of God from before the creation. That is as heavenly deity.
However, for Jesus' incarnation, from http://historical-jesus.info/:

Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "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).

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

for Jesus' incarnation ...

incarnation
ɪnkɑːˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality.
   "Rama was Vishnu's incarnation on earth"
   synonyms: embodiment, personification, exemplification, type, epitome; manifestation, bodily form, representation in the flesh; rare avatar

• assumption of human form or nature.

• the Incarnation, (sometimes lowercase) Theology: the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity assumed^a human form in the person of Jesus Christ and is completely both God and man.
  
  1. = was given human form

[Bernard Muller]

Is God a human father . . . .

If I may embrace a line of argument that I believe Bernard himself will appreciate (since I think it echoes many of his other arguments)..... Concerning Galatians 4:4 ....

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Every human is born of a woman so why did Paul find it necessary to add this note? If Jesus had had a normal human birth then Paul would not have said that "God sent forth his Son born of a woman" but he would have used different words. He would have said "God called or anointed his Son who had been born of Joseph and Mary, or of human parents." That's what he would have said.

But what Paul said was that he sent forth his own Son. And since Paul would have worried that some readers would have interpreted that claim as meaning that Jesus was a spirit and not a real human, he added that God had sex with caused his Son to be born of a woman. So Paul knew Jesus was an ordinary man of flesh and blood, and a Jew, because Jewish line is traced through the mothers.

So Paul knew Jesus was just as historical as any other god-man in history human and also God's Son.

Actually, I do not agree with Neil's explanation.
The reason why Paul wrote Gal 4:4 is explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/18.html.
An extract:

Paul used the common knowledge Jesus had been an earthly man (from a woman) and a Jew (as descendant of Abraham) in order to clinch a long & complicated argument. If the existence of Jesus on earth was not accepted or even doubted, then the argument would simply not work.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Every human is born of a woman, so why did Paul find it necessary to add this note? If Jesus had had a normal human birth then Paul would not have said that "God sent forth his Son born of a woman" but he would have used different words. He would have said "God called or anointed his Son who had been born of Joseph and Mary, or of human parents." That's what he would have said.

Yep, one would think so.

I've take the liberty of editing Neil's next paragraphs -

• But what Paul said was that God sent forth his own Son. And since Paul would have worried that some readers would have interpreted that.. as meaning that Jesus was a spirit and not a real human, he added that God had sex with caused his Son to be born of a woman. So Paul knew inferred Jesus was 'an ordinary man' of flesh and blood, and a Jew, because Jewish line is traced through the mothers.
  
  So Paul knew asserted Jesus was... human and also God's Son.