jgibson000

Malachi is referring to material that is found in Gal. 4 21-31. Unfortunately, he does not know (or refuses to take into account) that the allegory set out in vvs. 21 to 31 is part of the argument against the "judaizers" being made vvs 8-20. It is only thematically, but not formally, of a piece with the argument of which 4:3 is a part (i.e., the argument about no justification by the law which begins at 3:10 and ends at 4:7.

Further more, Malachi doesn't seem to able to see (or, given how he has committed himself to the idea that much of the NT as allegory, to want to admit) -- and he certainly has never ever read or dealt with the scholarly literature on Gal. 4:1-7 that shows -- that the specific point being made about how, as Paul claims, Jesus is able to deliver those people who in history had been and are subjected to the law is grounded in, and stands or falls by the veracity of, the historical fact that he [Jesus] was, like them, not only a human being, but one who had actually been subjected to the law.

Try asking him what commentaries on Galatians or scholarly periodical literature on the arguments of Gal. 4 he's read.


JG

Malachi151

"the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. "

Cege

It's not difficult to find the word "allegory" used by Paul in Galations. What is difficult is understanding the why and how of the interpretation that you make of it.

Sarah isn't the mother of Jesus, and neither is Hagar. They are Old Testament figures who lived centuries before Jesus. The allegory is clearly composed of Sarah and Hagar, not the woman Paul says gave birth to Jesus.

How do you arrive at the interpretation that Paul claims the mother of Jesus is "the Jerusalem above...free and...our mother"? If anything, Paul concludes the allegory with Sarah being "our mother" in the same sense that he concludes Abraham is "our father".

Ted Hoffman

He says in verse 9 (1 Cor 2) that God did not reveal to them what he had planned for Jesus. In essence, by Killing Jesus, they elevated him. Its like God tricked them. I see no problem there.
Is that God named? Is it your experience that historical people are pre-existent? That is, they exist before they incarnate as flesh and blood men?
I dont disagree with this. Nobody has imputed dishonest motives to Paul.
What are you talking about? departed figure of the Nazarenes?
Evidence please.
That he had no interest in Jesus implies Jesus existed. That he "did not exist then" means Jesus did not exist. Be clear please. What do you mean by the "gospel Jesus"?
There are two Jesuses: the mythical Jesus of Paul and the historical Jesus in the gospels. I regard Mark as a kind of faux history which was taken literally by Luke and Matthew and the entire Christendom.
I don't disagree with this.
We dont know this.
I dont think you are serious. If you are, then we are just about done.
This sounds like religion, not historical analysis. I cant really say much about theological mish mash.

Ben C Smith

So, in your view, Paul intends to say that the mother of Jesus is the free woman, and, in order to emphasize his birth from a free woman, he throws in the bit about Jesus being born under the law, which elsewhere in Galatians (5.1-3) he equates with slavery. :huh:

Ben.

Solo

You are missing my point, Ted. Demons are what they are. By definition. Paul introduces an idea which makes the crucifixion contingent on the rulers' understanding. Ergo they cannot be said to be demons; at best they were influenced by demonic powers.

Yes. I did have a strange sort of experience to which my interest in early Christianity relates (had none previously). My quest started with a simple question: why did I, irreligious as I am by nature, become absorbed by religious hooey, and two (a little later when I resumed calling myself by real name again), hey, what if this was the kind of experience of which Christianity, and religions generally, was wrought ? How would people respond to a sudden mid-life outbreak of acute bi-polarity in antiquity ? How would they have coped intellectually with the "peaks" of nervous excitement in which one does experience oneself out of one's body ?
What about the terror that sets in after the peaks ? Would that not be what is sitting behind the idea of the Apocalypse ? How would they have settled into life afterwards, having no other reference than the Book of Mostly Lonely Men on Mountains ?

Now to the notion of pre-existence: It is the most natural auto-suggestion to occur to a manic (but not necessarily only to a manic), and this relates to the changes in cognitive patterns that occur as a result of chemical changes in the brain during severe episodes. There are distinct temporal impressions that you get with certain forms of cognitive dysfunction: i.e. all things exist outside of time; time itself is the greatest illusion; the future has already happened, i.e. you can predict it; the sequencing of events is meaningless. It's all happening at the same moment. In the psychotic (panic) phase of mania the "decease" of the time function becomes the most frightening aspect in the episode. It is like a movie that goes forward and backward at the same time, with, as Michael Persinger says 'the anticipation of self-dissolution' in the time-space decay. I would only correct the "anticipation" bit. Death does not lie always immediately forward, but sometimes the feeling is that it has already happened and the disembodied soul witnesses its "pre-existent last moments" - so I would say the anxiety as over the pervasive sense of overhanging death.

In short then, based on my own experience of acute bipolarity, I tend to see the concepts of "resurrection", "pre-existence", "descent from heaven/to hell", "baptism by fire", "temptation by Satan", "kingdom of God", "judgment", "ascent to heaven", as experiential categories relating to the phases of the episodes.

HJ

1 Th 4:13-18

Jesus, as portrayed by the gospels.

This may look to some as paradox-hunting but I do believe that Paul's radical rejection of the "other" Jesus best testifies to the historicity of the figure. He says he knows no man "after the flesh" (kata sarka) any longer, yea, he knew Christ through a worldly view (i.e. non-mystically) but knows him that way no longer. (2 Cr 5:16) What other Christ was there left to know, what does the parallel with other men signify, if not emphasis ? Then of course, you have noticed, I am sure, that the genuine Paul does not consider the execution of Jesus an act of "lawless men" (as Acts does). Jesus was born under the law and died under (the curse of) the law. In Romans (8:4) he says that Jesus' death was a "just requirement of the law" (to dikaioma tou nomou).

There are two Jesuses converging on one, going backwards in time. The gospel Jesus is not historical except (I believe) in some rudiments surrounding his death, and some sayings that possibly come from him. Mark does not pretend to be history in the sense some prosecute it here. I prefer to look at it as "spiritualist thriller" written for those unto whom it was given to know the Jesus' mysteries. The outsiders may read it as parables or literally as history proper.
With respect to Matthew and Luke, I disagree strongly. There are many indications that both read the Jesus travelogue of Mark, as fully registering the esoteric side of Mark. Both original writers were doubtless bipolar themselves (each leaving a "signature" in the Sermon: Matt in the first two beatitudes which are specifically to the depressed and Luke in 6:21), feeling confident to add and subtract from Mark to underscore the experiential core of the story.

You are right, we don't.

Serious about what ? Sure you heard the expressions "pesher" and "midrash". Or are you disputing that the televangelists do not quote OT in relating the latest on Baghdad, Tehran and Kandahar to the Final Battle of "Good against Good and Evil against Evil" as G.W.Bush says ?

I am merely interpreting Paul. I really am not responsible for what he believed and whether it may offend you.

Jiri

Gamera

Galatians is undoubtedly authentic and I fail to see how anybody can credibily reinterpret Gal 4: 1-5 as a reference to anything but rather recent events in Judea correlated with Jesus birth, life and death.

Is there credible evidence (that isn't circular) that this thoroughly Pauline-sounding passage is an interpolation in an otherwise authentic Pauline letter. If not, it seems the proponents of a Pauline spiritual Jesus have a big obstacle.

Toto

Is this the passage you mean?

I don't see how this clearly points to recent events in Judea.

Gamera

Well, Paul states thatl Jesus came at the right time, which seems to be rather recently, since the salvational moment appears to be close enough to the time of his writing, that he needs to write about it, not 500 years prior. His coming implies coming somewhere. The context indicates that he came to the Jews, being under law, and hence "in bondage" to it. The gentiles were never under law, so why would Jesus come to Macedonians or Norsemen? The passage goes on to say that Jesus redeemed those under the law from the bondage of the law. Again, that's got to be the Jews and given Jesus didn't have a fax machine, the place to do it is Judea.

As many have noted, the terminology here comes from the world of commerce. It's a physical redeeming, a paying of a debt, which implies again, physical presence in conjunction with the thing redeemed. They didn't have wire transfers in 1st century Judea.

Finally the redeeming, as Paul is at pains to show throughout his epistles, takes place through the cross. So the redemption is in the form of the crucifixion, which apparently took place among Jews under the law, under the Romans (and there brutal form of execution), in recent times from Paul's perspective and not bronze age Burma.

It seems pretty far-fetched to see the salvational Jesus of this passage coming anywhere but the seat of Judaism.