smugg

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.

Kosh

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.

Jebus

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?

smugg

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.

Tercel

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.

SingleDad

Indeed... Thus Paul might write "they ate tuna sandwiches" when referring to the miracle of loaves and fishes?

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 ]

Deathscyth Hell

[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.

SingleDad

Deathscyth Hell

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.

What an amusing and completely irrelevant anecdote.

Mageth

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 ]

Terracotta

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.