Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-19-2010, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

[
The fact that Paul doesn't say "born of Mary" suggests that the information wasn't available to Paul, which is of course consistent with the Jesus tradition developing after the time of Paul.

spin

But, how could the Jesus tradition develop after PAUL when Paul already knew the tradition that Jesus was ALREADY called the Messiah, was called the Creator of heaven and earth, was born of a woman, that he was betrayed in the night after he had supped, was crucified, died, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD DAY?

The Pauline writers did NOT even ever claim that they were NOT aware of the Jesus stories and ALSO claimed they persecuted believers of Jesus who was ALREADY called the Messiah before the Pauline writers started preaching the FAITH.

The Pauline writers KNEW Jesus was ALREADY called the Messiah.

The Pauline writers were aware of the tradition of JESUS.

GakuseiDon · 07-19-2010, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yes, I think so, at least in that context. That is, we would need to ask why the interpolators were interested in added statements that promoted either an ahistorical or a historical Jesus.

We see Jesus depicted as historical in the gospels. Is it really difficult to understand why later editors would want that same Jesus to shine through in Paul?

Yes. What changes were made to Paul that suggests they were influenced by the Gospels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

For example, for those who believe that "born of a woman" was added to Paul, why add that phrase? Why not add "born of Mary"?

Doesn't this same question apply if you presume the phrase is genuine?

Very much so.

GakuseiDon · 07-19-2010, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
For example, for those who believe that "born of a woman" was added to Paul, why add that phrase? Why not add "born of Mary"?

The interpolator was not concerned with adding historical details for the benefit of 21st century questers. The interpolator only needed to provide a theological correction and establish that Jesus was born of a woman, to counter the heretics who claimed that he arrived on earth by some other means.

What does "born of woman" give you that "seed of David" or "seed of Abraham" doesn't?

show_no_mercy · 07-19-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Gak's question is actually an interesting one.

I don't see the need to appeal to an interpolator to deal with the comment "born of a woman". For Jesus to function as a valid surrogate in place of believers who would normally be considered as having failed to fulfill the law and are therefore under the curse of the law, he needs to be able to fulfill the law himself, ie he needs to be under the law (ie human) and to have unfailingly kept the law. If both conditions are met he can be seen as a worthy substitute for those who have come under the penalty of the law. The second is a matter of his actions, while the first is a result of having been born of a woman.

The fact that Paul doesn't say "born of Mary" suggests that the information wasn't available to Paul, which is of course consistent with the Jesus tradition developing after the time of Paul.

spin

Mostly with you. I think the best way to make sense of the purpose of a phrase is to look at the whole sentence.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

It seems to be the same theological point that I heard in Sunday school: Christ needed to be a man in order to be accepted among men, represent men and "redeem" men.

So, spin, I am with on your second paragraph. I am not with you on the third paragraph, because it seems to follow that it is irrelevant that Jesus was born from Mary--naming such a name may distract from the point that Paul was making. The point was that Jesus was born from a woman, which makes him a man, and the specific mother did not matter.

This seems to imply that Paul's Jesus was mythical, and this (born of a woman) was posited to fulfill some sort of mythical soteriology.

Like you said, Jesus was supposed to be a man so that he could redeem men. It's not that Jesus was supposed to be a man because Paul saw him at the market eating fish a couple of weeks before he was killed.

show_no_mercy · 07-19-2010, 07:31 AM

Over on neilgodfrey's blog, he's been making a flurry of posts about the differences between NT historical methodology and every other field's historical methodology. Might be a good place to start.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/04/...m-methodology/

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/07/...rated-reports/

Clivedurdle · 07-19-2010, 08:38 AM

Is not born of a woman a theological statement, (ignoring the translation of virgin)?

Quote:

Isa 7:14 -

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel..

bacht · 07-19-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

This seems to imply that Paul's Jesus was mythical, and this (born of a woman) was posited to fulfill some sort of mythical soteriology.

Like you said, Jesus was supposed to be a man so that he could redeem men. It's not that Jesus was supposed to be a man because Paul saw him at the market eating fish a couple of weeks before he was killed.

Yes, and much of the NT can be explained in this reverse kind of way: the church needed something and created or modified a text to achieve the necessary legitimacy.

Believers usually insist on the opposite process: historical events leading to descriptive history which remained untouched through the centuries.

aa5874 · 07-19-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

This seems to imply that Paul's Jesus was mythical, and this (born of a woman) was posited to fulfill some sort of mythical soteriology.

Like you said, Jesus was supposed to be a man so that he could redeem men. It's not that Jesus was supposed to be a man because Paul saw him at the market eating fish a couple of weeks before he was killed.

Yes, and much of the NT can be explained in this reverse kind of way: the church needed something and created or modified a text to achieve the necessary legitimacy.

Believers usually insist on the opposite process: historical events leading to descriptive history which remained untouched through the centuries.

Believers INSIST? No believers BELIEVE what they are told, then they INSIST that they were told the TRUTH.

What process did believers follow in the 2nd century? I mean those of Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Caprocates, Cerinthus, Empedocles, Marcus, and the host of supposed Christian heretics?

ApostateAbe · 07-19-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Mostly with you. I think the best way to make sense of the purpose of a phrase is to look at the whole sentence.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

It seems to be the same theological point that I heard in Sunday school: Christ needed to be a man in order to be accepted among men, represent men and "redeem" men.

So, spin, I am with on your second paragraph. I am not with you on the third paragraph, because it seems to follow that it is irrelevant that Jesus was born from Mary--naming such a name may distract from the point that Paul was making. The point was that Jesus was born from a woman, which makes him a man, and the specific mother did not matter.

This seems to imply that Paul's Jesus was mythical, and this (born of a woman) was posited to fulfill some sort of mythical soteriology.

Like you said, Jesus was supposed to be a man so that he could redeem men. It's not that Jesus was supposed to be a man because Paul saw him at the market eating fish a couple of weeks before he was killed.

I can't disagree too much, if at all. A lot of mythicists seem to think that Paul's Jesus was spiritual and not human, but, if the writings of Paul do draw a profile of Jesus as a human, then it would seem more sensible to posit Paul's mythical Jesus as a human in addition to a spirit, not just a spirit. It doesn't even make sense for Paul to believe in a merely-spiritual messiah, since there is a prophecy that says the messiah will be born of a maiden.

Toto · 07-19-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... if the writings of Paul do draw a profile of Jesus as a human, then it would seem more sensible to posit Paul's mythical Jesus as a human in addition to a spirit, not just a spirit.

If only they did, and if you could believe that Paul's real writings are available to us.

Quote:

It doesn't even make sense for Paul to believe in a merely-spiritual messiah, since there is a prophecy that says the messiah will be born of a maiden.

That "prophecy" is a misinterpretation in any case. Are you aware of other cases where Paul uses prophecy based on the Hebrew Scriptures? I can't think of any off hand.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2010, 07:31 AM	#35
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Over on neilgodfrey's blog, he's been making a flurry of posts about the differences between NT historical methodology and every other field's historical methodology. Might be a good place to start. http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/04/...m-methodology/ http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/07/...rated-reports/

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.