Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gday all,

Paul E. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:17 am The recent comments suggest an interesting issue, imo, about the value of evidence of beliefs as they relate to what "actually happened," for lack of a better term.

Yup, the historical Jesus is a strong personal belief here.

Kapyong

Gday,

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:47 amGalatians 4:4 does not say a human father was not involved in the incarnation of the Son.

Pardon ?
Gal 4:4 does NOT say a human father was involved,
and it DOES say Jesus was the Son of God.

You are imposing your beliefs on the evidence again.

Kapyong

Kapyong wrote: ↑ Paul repeatedly describes Jesus Christ in heavenly terms, but he NEVER describes a place, or date, or time, or people's names connected to Jesus.

Paul's Jesus Christ is not a historical being.

Like a few other poetic, formulaic, and carefully composed passages in Paul's letters, I don’t think Paul composed this doxology in Romans, but (like the others) I do think that it was composed by one of his well-educated and faithful junior-partners with the intention of accurately reflecting Paul’s teaching. (and many Bibles mistranslate this passage, thereby suppressing the scriptural revelation)

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:03 am If someone is said to be a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David and Israelites, that means he had a human father.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:24 pm If 'someone' is said to be a descendent of those biblical characters, it is likely that 'someone' is a biblical or mythical character being elevated to deity status.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:36 pm Abraham, Jesse, David or Israelites were not considered by Paul to have been only biblical and certainly not non-existing beings mythical characters, but rather earthly humans.

lol. You're too immersed in it all. You can't seen the forest for the trees. Step back, and look at it all as Iron Age mythology.

Kapyong wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:03 pmPardon ?
Gal 4:4 does NOT say a human father was involved,
and it DOES say Jesus was the Son of God.

You are imposing your beliefs on the evidence again.

For my money, it is futile to read the phrase "born of a woman" as meaning anything other than an ordinary human birth. The lack of the "man" (the father) means nothing, since this is an idiom: one which means, simply, "mortal" or human.

As the mythicist G. A. Wells wrote in Who Was Jesus? (page 52):


One can pick apart the individual words all one wishes, but the real question is: what does the verse actually mean coming from the pen of the author? The idiom "born/produced/birthed of a woman" is used frequently enough in ancient texts that we can triangulate its meaning with a pretty good degree of accuracy, and I believe Wells is right: had the author been imagining some uncommon kind of birth (including some kind of situation in which Jesus lacked a human father), this idiom would be highly misleading.

That said, I myself tend to doubt that Paul actually penned the words "born of a woman, born under the law." Marcion's version of Galatians seems to have lacked both of these phrases, and the "born of a woman" phrase especially seems to me to stick out in a somewhat ungainly fashion. What is its point in context? How does it help Paul's argument about the law? The payoff for Paul seems to be little, whereas the payoff for someone in late century I or early century II who wishes to avoid the specter of a docetic Jesus is great. It may well be an interpolation.

Kapyong wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:56 pm Gday all,

iskander wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:49 am Paul says Jesus was a Jew by birth .

So what ?!
You seem (like Bernard and others) to have made a faulty and unspoken assumption that a birth can only happen on earth.
Which is obviously wrong.

Anything can happen in heaven - all sorts of actions and beings and objects are described in heaven. Of course a birth can happen in heaven.

Do you believe it is impossible for Paul to believe in a heavenly birth ?
If so, why ?

What about the woman in Revelation who gives birth among the stars with a dragon risk ?
Was she historical ?

Paul repeatedly describes Jesus Christ in heavenly terms, but he NEVER describes a place, or date, or time, or people's names connected to Jesus.

Paul's Jesus Christ is not a historical being.


Kapyong

Paul says Jesus was a Jew by birth .

Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2753&start=50

Romans 9:4-5, these verses explain the background of the New Testament : the story in the NT is a development of the religion of the Israelites who are sons of God and used to the presence of God in their midst as partner , overseer ,
maestro and Santa.


From this people by sexual intercourse [ katasarka , natural descent] a Messiah was born .This Messiah is a precious gift of the one who is above all.


NT verses chosen:
Romans 9:4They are descendants of Israel, chosen to be God's sons; theirs is the glory of the divine presence, theirs the covenants, the law, the temple worship, and the promises.

Romans 9:5 The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all , be blessed forever! Amen.

What first century evidence would you expect to find?

Paul is saying that Jesus was a man like any other. For Paul Jesus is the Messiah and his resurrection will return humanity to the Garden of Eden. It is a religious story based on the life of a religious reformer,

What first century evidence would you expect to find?

to Ben,

How does it help Paul's argument about the law? The payoff for Paul seems to be little, whereas the payoff for someone in late century I or early century II who wishes to avoid the specter of a docetic Jesus is great. It may well be an interpolation.

Actually, Gal 4:4 in the main element used to clinch a long argument. It is absolutely necessary, as I explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/18.html

I noted:

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

to Kapyong,

You seem (like Bernard and others) to have made a faulty and unspoken assumption that a birth can only happen on earth.
Which is obviously wrong.

Oh, born from a woman not on earth? What next?

What about the woman in Revelation who gives birth among the stars with a dragon risk ?
Was she historical ?

That's poetic licence with extravaganza. Furthermore, that celestial woman is a sign, not the real one:
RSV 12:1 "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;"
YLT "And a great sign was seen in the heaven, ..."
At 12:2, that woman looks very human and at 12:6 & 12:13, she is located on earth. At 12:14, that woman is provided wings so she could fly. That implies she could not do that before.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:55 pm to Ben,

How does it help Paul's argument about the law? The payoff for Paul seems to be little, whereas the payoff for someone in late century I or early century II who wishes to avoid the specter of a docetic Jesus is great. It may well be an interpolation.

Actually, Gal 4:4 in the main element used to clinch a long argument. It is absolutely necessary, as I explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/18.html

I noted:

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.

I agree with your raw data, but disagree with your conclusion. Jesus being "born of a woman" does not add anything to the argument (much less "clinch" it) that has not already been covered in chapter 3. There Jesus is already the seed of Abraham; this implies that he was "born of a woman" (in all relevant senses of the phrase). So I completely agree with you that Paul (and his readers) are assuming that Jesus is a human (if the rest of the text is intact); but that is the point: both the assumption and the specific point that Jesus is the "seed of Abraham" promised in Genesis are already on the table; there is no need to rehearse this information in terms even more vague than what came before. "Born of a woman" adds little or nothing to Paul's argument, assuming (perhaps foolishly) that chapter 3 is Pauline and relatively intact, but would clarify a great deal in the ecclesiastical war against the docetic menace.

Gday,

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:25 pm Oh, born from a woman not on earth? What next?

There is the problem.
For some reason you cannot believe that a birth can be mentioned in writing unless it is a physical historical event.

How about the woman who gives birth among the stars while a dragon hunts her child - from the NT itself.

Did that birth happen on earth ?


Kapyong