Doug Shaver

I think everyone takes that for granted. The question is why Paul thought it necessary to assert his humanity if nobody was questioning it. And if Jesus was a historical person, why would anybody have questioned his humanity within just a couple of decades after his death?

Gorit Maqueda

Let's dive into Paul's mind. Jesus is the Son of God, no doubt. Now, I see three options:

1) Jesus has a Father, and a divine Mother. Wow, those friends of mine, the Jews, would never forgive me for this. Too radical, even for me.

2) Jesus has a Father, but no mother. This is the same case as Afrodita (in some versions of the myth). But, but... how can an immortal being's clone (klone?, klwnh?) be mortal? And without death, there is no resurrection. And there goes my Christolgy. No, no, no.

3) Jesus has a Father, and a mortal mother, that is, a woman. Mmm... At least, He can die, then. But, what woman? Living where? Name? Mmm... Better leave this to more imaginative writers...

EarlDoherty

May I suggest having a look at my most recent Supplementary Article on the Jesus Puzzle website: "Born of Woman? Reexamining Galatians 4:4". It looks at this passage from both possibilities: that it is authentic to Paul, and that it is an interpolation. Includes a consideration of Marcion's Galatians (through Tertullian).

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp15.htm

Earl Doherty

Solo

And then again, Paul's "silences" may very well be given by Paul's basic posture. If there was HJ then the obvious explanation is that Paul stayed silent on the words and deeds of the executed preacher because he never accepted the "authority" of the earthly Jesus, just as he he did not accept the "authority" of the church "pillars" who derived it from personal knowledge of Jesus. Jesus would have God's kingdom on earth - while in flesh - which was craziness and blasphemy to Paul, until as Doherty put it, he himself got knocked off his donkey. Then of course Paul got a spiritual view of Jesus but that changed nothing on his view of Jesus' earthly career as coming to naught ! All Jesus could do down here was suffer (like the rest of us) until he got gloriously beamed up. To Paul, all that is important about Jesus comes from the risen Lord. Point final; no more needs to be said !

Jiri

Steven Carr

Is this a bit like saying that 'flesh and blood' is a metaphor for a mortal being?

So that 'Nobody born of a woman can enter the kingdom of God' and 'Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God' would both have very similar meanings?

Steven Carr

[/QUOTE]

Did Jesus know he was telling the truth when he said that among those born of a woman, there was no one greater than John the Baptist?

Would Paul have agreed that Jesus was telling the truth about people born of a woman?

gstafleu

Yes, this could be the case, but I think my explanation is more parsimonious, as it just uses the text as is without having to posit anything about not accepting authority (not accepting the authority of the wold's ultimate savior, how does that work anyway?). Paul never says anything substantial (earth-wise) about Jesus, so we can't assume he knew anything substantial, so we don't. Parsimonious, no? We also learn from the text (let's assume this to be so) that earthliness in Jesus was important to Paul. So he simply stated this to be the case, though of necessity in a rather vague way (woman, law, David, that's it, tops, isn't it?). Stating a necessity to be real is not a large digression for one who thinks one can make necessities real by stating them, IOW for the religious mind. I think I outparsimony you here.

Gerard Stafleu

Solo

How does that work, Gerard ? Like this:

1 Cr 2:2 : For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

2 Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.


But Paul says he won't consider Jesus' authority except as risen Lord. We don't have to assume anything.

What do you mean by "earthliness", Gerard ? Do you mean that Jesus was in flesh and therefore was condemned for the sin of the flesh ? I am ok with that.

So let's agree then that Jesus' "earthliness" was important to Paul and that this is borne by the texts. But then you go on and assume rather gratuitously that Paul's vagueness in referencing Jesus was necessary.

How is that borne by the texts ? Or is it ? Or is that belief of yours simply a way of saying that Paul's Christ seems unreal to you.


You are a picture of modesty, Gerard.

Jiri

Gamera

Paul's phraseology may relate to the magnitude of Jesus's sacrifice, which was generally foremost in Paul's mind throughout his writings The idea is that Jesus, as divine, lowered himself to be born into the limitations of humanity.

Thus, Phillippians has a similar phrase (and even if arguably not written by Paul is in the Pauline school)

Philippians 2:6 - though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

The issue for Paul is always the salvational nature of Jesus's sacrifice, which is far more extensive than just the crucifixion, and which points to the magnitude of God's love. It is Jesus as divinity entering into this little (almost petty) narrative of the gospel, where he has to deal with the inherent and constant limitation of being human, including the dullness and cowardice of the apostles, the betrayals, the ingratitude, the insults, and ultimately death.