FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-28-2001, 07:47 AM   #1
smugg
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 270
Post Paul (again...)

I'm trying to find in Paul's writings either reference to the virgin birth or reference to a normal birth. If anyone could speed this search up I'd greatly appreciate it.
smugg is offline  
Old 09-28-2001, 08:09 AM   #2
Kosh
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by smugg:
<STRONG>I'm trying to find in Paul's writings either reference to the virgin birth or reference to a normal birth. If anyone could speed this search up I'd greatly appreciate it.</STRONG>
Stop looking. About all he'll ever say is
"Jesus was born". Lack of details about
Jesus' life are the core of Earl Doherty's
theories on Jesus myths.
Kosh is offline  
Old 09-28-2001, 11:51 AM   #3
Jebus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 43
Post

Try Galatians 4:4. Think that's the only reference Paul makes to Jesus' birth. Paul was most likely not aware of the virgin birth story or he would have mentioned it in these verses. If he's talking about his birth, how could miss talking about something miraculous like that?
Jebus is offline  
Old 09-28-2001, 12:37 PM   #4
smugg
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 270
Post

Yeah, thanks. All he says is that Jesus was "made of woman, under the law," in Galatians 4:4.

It does seem unlikely Paul wouldn't have mentioned a supernatural birth, but I'm gonna have a hard time trying the old 'negative argument' on my favorite fundy board...

I'll just have to try a different tact.
smugg is offline  
Old 09-30-2001, 07:50 PM   #5
Tercel
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

Who says the "born of a woman" bit isn't a reference to Jesus having an unusual birth. It's not really the most obvious way of saying it, and the reference to a woman (who were 2nd class citizens) is unusual. I would have thought "born of human parents" or "born the son of a man" more likely phrases if that's all Paul was meaning.
Tercel is offline  
Old 09-30-2001, 09:50 PM   #6
SingleDad
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Littleton, CO, USA
Posts: 1,477
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
<STRONG>Who says the "born of a woman" bit isn't a reference to Jesus having an unusual birth. It's not really the most obvious way of saying it, and the reference to a woman (who were 2nd class citizens) is unusual. I would have thought "born of human parents" or "born the son of a man" more likely phrases if that's all Paul was meaning.</STRONG>
Indeed... Thus Paul might write "they ate tuna sandwiches" when referring to the miracle of loaves and fishes?

Quote:
Galatians 4
1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.
3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
The ordinary rule in interpreting language is that language says what it says. Pretty much everyone is "born of a woman"; there is absolutely no warrant except to satisfy one's own prejudices to read anything into that sentence except that Paul apparently believed (or wished the Galatians to believe) Jesus actually was a physical person at some point. Indeed, given the extended metaphor of the chapter, it is possible to argue that even the corporeality of Jesus is given as part of the metaphor.

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: SingleDad ]
SingleDad is offline  
Old 09-30-2001, 10:47 PM   #7
Deathscyth Hell
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Anderson, Indiana
Posts: 138
Post

[quote]The ordinary rule in interpreting language is that language says what it says. Pretty much everyone is "born of a woman"; there is absolutely no warrant except to satisfy one's own prejudices to read anything into that sentence except that Paul apparently believed (or wished the Galatians to believe) Jesus actually was a physical person at some point. Indeed, given the extended metaphor of the chapter, it is possible to argue that even the corporeality of Jesus is given as part of the metaphor.]

Actually, in ancient cultures like Judaism, if they refered to your mother instead of your father, then that usually meant that they didn't know who your father was and you were a bastard. Before using this ordinary rule, read more into the culture. It will help clear up many things. If you want me to give you an example I can.

What does "and the angel had 3 pairs of wings, one that covered its eyes, one used to fly, and one used to cover its feet." By your interpretation we would picture a flying angel with six wings, covering its head and feet. but thats not what an ancient Hebrew would picture. Becuase to "cover ones feet" is the polite way to say "to cover ones genitalia". That is why you need to read into the culture more.
Deathscyth Hell is offline  
Old 09-30-2001, 11:00 PM   #8
SingleDad
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Littleton, CO, USA
Posts: 1,477
Post

Deathscyth Hell

Quote:
Actually, in ancient cultures like Judaism, if they refered to your mother instead of your father, then that usually meant that they didn't know who your father was and you were a bastard. Before using this ordinary rule, read more into the culture. It will help clear up many things. If you want me to give you an example I can.
Please do. Reference the original Greek. Show multiple sources that show whatever greek phrase underlies "born of a woman" is considered pejorative. I am assuming that the translators of the NIV would have inserted a pejorative phrase in English had the original Greek been pejorative. They certainly could be wrong, but I see no actual evidence that I should read more into the passage than the ordinary meaning of the words.

Quote:
What does "and the angel had 3 pairs of wings, one that covered its eyes, one used to fly, and one used to cover its feet." By your interpretation we would picture a flying angel with six wings, covering its head and feet. but thats not what an ancient Hebrew would picture. Becuase to "cover ones feet" is the polite way to say "to cover ones genitalia". That is why you need to read into the culture more.
What an amusing and completely irrelevant anecdote.
SingleDad is offline  
Old 09-30-2001, 11:33 PM   #9
Mageth
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Post

Quote:
Actually, in ancient cultures like Judaism, if they refered to your mother instead of your father, then that usually meant that they didn't know who your father was and you were a bastard.
Gal. 4:4 says "born of a woman, born under the Law". If "born of a woman" means Paul was calling Jesus a "bastard", then Paul's statement is contradictory because an illegitimate child was not "born under the Law". "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Also refer to Deut. 23:2, "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord...".

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Magethlaro ]
Mageth is offline  
Old 10-01-2001, 05:21 AM   #10
Terracotta
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 369
Post

Also, don't forget that Paul WAS NOT A JEW, therefore it is unlikely he would have written according to Jewish literary customs. He was a Roman citizen. And most of his writings were not to Jews; they were to Gentile Christians.
Terracotta is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.