Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:28 pm
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.And how do you know

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:00 am Not in the Pauline epistles (which repeatedly give a human father to Jesus with no mention of virgin birth)

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).

Kapyong wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:19 pm
Is God a human father . . . .

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

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).

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:44 pm
for Jesus' incarnation ...

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

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:47 pm

Kapyong wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:19 pm
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.

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.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:47 pm
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 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.