Clivedurdle

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/alcmene/

Let's take this step by step.

Was Hercules mother human, was Hercules born of a woman? Are we agreed yes.

Who was Hercules dad? Zeus. Who is Zeus?

What then is Hercules? A god human hybrid.

What is the problem with seeing Jesus as a Jewish Hercules? OK with very different characteristics - not so obviously into war and sex - but that looks cultural differences! In fact Hercules arguably is kinder than Jesus and did greater miracles - he did take the burden of the whole world from Atlas!

The whole salvation story is about god becoming human and dying for us!

Why on earth anyone thinks there is a real human behind this is beyond me!

Ben C Smith

Amongst the ancient examples, the latter. (We find the former in Shakespeare, Macbeth V.7.)

I trust, however, that you agree that the meaning of the phrase is the same whether it is being assumed or asserted.

Paul felt compelled to assert that Jesus was born of a woman (that is, that Jesus was a human being), yes. But you seemed to be saying that Paul was concerned about establishing that his mother was human, and I do not see that. I think he simply assumed that the woman was human, same as the other expressions of that phrase.

Just to summarize my view, since it appears that some miscommunication has transpired above:

1. Paul thought that Jesus was the son of God.
2. Paul thought that Jesus saved mankind.
3. Paul thought that the savior should be made like the saved in order to save them.
4. Paul therefore asserted that Jesus became human (in order to save humans).

With this I agree.

Ben.

Solo

Right !

Perhaps, it would be helpful if people decoupled "mental illness" from "shame", or "incapacity". I suspect the sense that I am trying to injure their creed would disappear. Many brilliant men and women were quite seriously mentally challenged.

Besides, Paul not only admits he is sometimes out of his mind, he openly flaunts it as his connection to God ! (2 Cor 5:5) He offers his decrepit, depressive states (which have physical symptoms) to his Churches as a proof that his Christ is for real !

There must have been something in that method of persuasion, right ? There he was, physically frail, often dyskinetic, babbling, sometimes clearly psychotic man, who could explain the Universe, not to peasants, but to Greco-Roman middle class. They bought it. Go figure !

Why should I deny he was a paranoiac. Every man who believes himself in some kind of exclusive relationship with a deity, will be seen as one.

That's what Paul says, in Jesus Christ there is God's wisdom, which appears as foolishness to those wisened by this world.

Jiri

No Robots

Gotcha. Paul as Holy Madman. It's goooood.

Amaleq13

Human, yes.

I think I should have worded it "...none appear to be similarly concerned about only establishing that the mother was human..." All the others provided additional information about the mother beyond what one would think to be obvious but Paul had no need to relate any additional information. The simple fact of "human female" that is conveyed by "woman" was all he was apparently concerned with establishing.


That's why you haven't heard from me in a while.

spamandham

...an interesting story I suppose, but it appears to be mostly your own interpolation.

Paul's vision sounds like temporal lobe epilepsy to me. Studies have shown people who suffer from this condition tend to be extremely religious as well. Paul's extreme religious convictions further support that assessment that his experience was a siezure.

I agree that Paul's Christ is a spiritual concept. The questions are whether or not Paul believed a human Jesus had actually existed, and whether Paul was in a position to have insider knowledge about that. If you are correct in your assessment that Paul was hostile toward groups that advocated a living human Jesus (assuming that's even true), that really doesn't support the idea that Paul had knowledge of a human Jesus, particularly when Paul advocates a mystical Christ instead, but still calls him "Jesus".

It seems you are basically arguing that Paul was insane. If that's true, I'm not sure we can really conclude anything at all from his writings.

spamandham

Indeed a mystical text can have nuggets of history, and the context reveals that.

You have shown that the phrase "born of woman" was used in ordinary nonmystical references in a nonmystical manner. I don't find that the least bit surprising.

What you have not shown as far as I know, is that within mystical references, this same phrase usually means a nonmystical ordinary birth. I'm not saying it necessarily doesn't, I just don't see why you seem to think that it necessarily does in this case.

I'm not saying that at all. More specifically, I referred to mystical writings and not theological writings in general. A mystic uses ordinary language, but the intent is that it be understood to mean something other than what is actually said.

If Galatians 4 is mystical, and it certainly looks like it is to me, then anything in it is more likely to be a symbolic reference to something else than to be intended as literal, unless the context makes it clear. An outsider has little chance of understanding what a mystic actually means by what he says. Mystics often include phrases designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.

spamandham

Are you suggesting Paul saw himself as the incarnated version of Jesus, whom he considered to be an angelic being?

That is an interesting interpretation. If you are correct, we would expect to see Paul use the expression "Son of God" in references to Jesus when he's referring to the spiritual realm, and in references to himself when referring to an earthly being.

Clivedurdle

http://www.culture-routes.lu/php/fo_...d_pa_det&rub=6

A fascinating discussion of the interplay of various characters on the history of Europe.

dzim77

first of all you would have to specify which references.

But, in general...

Because they are completely differnet things. Saying "you received me as if I were an angel or even Jesus himself" is using figurative language. He's talking about something that happened in reality (he was received with kindness) and using exageration to emphasize his point.

This is different than attributing what Paul clearly states as occuring in the physical realm to having occured in some sort of spiritual realm.