Ben C Smith

Revelation is a mystical book, to be sure, but its quality of describing things through elaborate symbols is not what makes it mystical. (And even Revelation, I should point out, can be mined for history; the existence of an island called Patmos, for instance, or the presence of Christian communities in Laodicea, Philadelphia, and the other churches, or the existence of a cult called the Nicolatians, and so forth.)

Here is the definition of mysticism from the Random House dictionary:

1. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
2. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
3. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
4. Vague, groundless speculation.

Note that mysticism is not primarily about how one presents information but rather about how one receives information (through spiritual consciousness instead of human logic or scientific inquiry). The communion of the soul with God (in a state of ecstasy or contemplation) is a very common motif among Christian mystics.

Writing in nonliteral images is of course quite compatible with mysticism, but if that is your working definition of it then I think you are striking out on your own.

Ben.

youngalexander

From the Concise Oxford mystical:
but mysticism:
However, Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions, says of mysticism:
And much more besides.

Trusting that this will be of assistance.

ynquirer

If Gal 4:22 speaks of the sons of two women and Gal:24 clarifies it is an allegory, why assuming that the phrase “born of a woman” in Gal 4:4, which is not qualified in the same way, is an allegory as well? Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Amaleq13

I don't consider the absence of supporting evidence for a "mystical" intended meaning to be "specious".

I see no resemblance between this statement and anyone's position in the discussion. It is a straw man.

It is always "possible" that an author meant something other than the most obvious meaning of the words chosen but recognizing that fact is ultimately useless unless one can produce evidence and/or argument indicating it is more than a mere possibility. And that requires precisely the work you appear to want to avoid.

Solo

Paul's election by God as a revealer of Christ is a delusional exaggeration; Paul's view of the cosmic meaning in Jesus death is a delusional exaggeration; Paul's view of himself as "crucified" is a delusional exaggeration :

Paul's Christ is a figure of speech for Paul's attempting to dissociate an exaggerated sense of self. The man was a genius who discovered universal hope in his personal madness. (sanity check: yes, that is right !)

Jiri

Doug Shaver

Please excuse my forgetfulness. I'll have another look at it.

No Robots

What about the Gospel passages where the brethren of Christ are clearly identified as blood relatives? Do they not help determine the direction our interpretation should take?

As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.
And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.
But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.—Mt 12:46-49

And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles?
[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
[56] And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
[57] And they were scandalized in his regard. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
[58] And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.—Mt. 13:54-58

jgibson000

I'd be grateful if you'd specify which particular "grounds" so far presented do you find find specious?

Ah, but does Paul say in Galatians (or for that matter, anywhere else) that Jesus existed at/from the beginning of time?

Again, you not only seem to be assuming what needs to be proven, but you also show yourself unaware of how, especially in the light of the examination (some of which has been produced on this board) by Jimmy Dunn and others of the texts traditionally adduced as indicating a belief on the part of Paul in the "pre-existence" of the Son , Pauline scholarship has tended to reject the notion, once widely held, that the "pre-existence" of the Son is something that Paul accepted.

In any case, it is important to note that there is, to my knowledge, not a single Pauline scholar who thinks that holding to the notion that Paul believed in the Son's "pre-existence" entails a denial that in Gal 4:4 Paul is making an assertion about Jesus' historicity or that the expression GENOMOMENON EK GUNAIKOS found there is anything other than an historical statement.

In other words, they don't see that there's any contradiction between Paul asserting the Son's "pre-existence" and a belief on Paul's part in the Son's earthly existence. After all, the author who most certainly believed in the pre-existence of the Logos, the author of the Gospel of John, did not refrain from believing and asserting dogmatically that this Logos appeared concretely in history at a specific time and place. Why then should a "pre-existence of the Son" believing Paul not do so as well?

Jeffrey Gibson

Soul Invictus

I don't think it's a matter of Paul stating something that he is or isn't interested in. That's an apologetic assumption without merit. I think that it's more plausible that it's indicative of lack of knowledge of events because there's no attestation of such events.

I think this is an excuse to justify why Paul is glaringly silent on the purported aspects of Jesus life.
I find it interesting and convenient that Paul makes no mention of:

1) The crucifixion
2) Pilate or the Romans
3) Herod and his persecution of Jesus's earthly parents
4) Judas
5) Holy women at the cross
6) No personal events mentioned in the gospel's account of the passion

He makes no allusions to any of the above in any vein, and he also
never quotes Jesus' purported sermons and speeches. He makes no mention of Jesus's virgin birth, or his alleged wonders and miracles.

While Paul could have chosen to omit such details, it's a stretch to imply that none of the essential and fantastic aspects of Jesus's life would not get an iota of discussion.

Paul's omissions notwithstanding, it's also of note that Philo failed to make mention of any of the noteworthy events surrounding Jesus's life as well. As the contemporary historian from the time that Jesus would have existed is definitely of note. Apologetics for the silence on such noteworthy information is ineffective, unconvincing and not compelling...especially the oft used notions that there was a lack of interest in Jesus and/or his influence, or rather the insignificance that he posed in order to consider recording particular fantastic parts of history.

Does anyone have any contention with the statement that there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of a figure known as Jesus, the Christ, and that the only literary evidence of a Jesus Christ is contained within the gospels?

No Robots

What about this passage (1 Co. 2:2):

For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.