Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 04-22-2012, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog

Clearly, there is more to consider here than just a naive acceptance that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" means Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary.

Yes, and another thing he is not considering is the difficulty in being sure that "born of woman, born under the Law" was actually in the original Galatians. But I'm not reproducing here a many-page argument to that effect in my book.

Not only is it impossible to convince a diehard believer that it's even possible that Jesus did not exist, it's just as impossible to get them to even read material which presents arguments in that direction.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 04-22-2012, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The same with being "buried," and raised as "first fruit" before the resurrection of the dead. That makes no sense unless it happened on earth.

Of course it does. Read Plutarch on Osiris, and you will find that he places the myth of Osiris in the heavens, which includes Osiris' burial. I spent a whole chapter in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man outlining the great variety of things--I call them "geomorphic"--which were seen as taking place in various layers of the heavens. Why exclude 'burial'? Nor does "firstfruits" in any way require that the resurrection took place on earth, given the soteriological system evident in both Christianity and the pagan myths and Jewish sectarian thought of "paradigmatic parallelism" in which figures and actions taking place in heaven conferred counterpart relationships and guarantees on their believers on earth. The epistle to the Hebrews presents a clearly heavenly sacrifice of Jesus' blood in the heavenly sanctuary which is the sole thing that confers salvation on the believer on earth.

Diogenes, you are not only thinking inside the box, you've got yourself locked and bolted in. Not much of the "Cynic" there.

Earl Doherty

It is you who have locked yourself in a box. Whether Osiris was crucified in heaven has ZERO to do with the Jesus story.

Plus your use of Hebrews does NOT help your argument because Hebrews is considered a LATE source whose authorship and date of writing cannot be ascertained in the 1st century. The very same applies to 1 Peter--this is a source considered to be LATER than the Pauline writings.

You have FAILED to establish that the Pauline writings were indeed written in the 1st century before c 70 CE and have based your theory on PRESUMPTIONS.

The Pauline writings [P 46] are dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

Your theory of Sub-lunar crucifixion of Jesus are FAITH based.

You have locked yourself in a box of PRESUMPTIONS.

JonA · 04-23-2012, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon

Still missing the point I'm afraid.

When folk like Paul talked about the Second Coming, he did so with language that did not imply a first coming. When the gospel writers talked about the Second Coming, they also did so with language that did not imply a first coming; it is irrelevant as to the exact words used (which, in some cases were the exact words) since the point is that none of these early Christians talked about the Second Coming in a way that clearly implies a first coming—including those who obviously did believe in a first coming.

Therefore, we cannot conclude that folk like Paul did not believe in a first coming based on the way he talked about the Second. Imagine applying your logic to the Gospel of John; we'd have to conclude that John didn't believe in a first coming because he only talks about the Second Coming in language that does not imply a first! Your argument leads us to a contradiction and so is necessarily invalid. The only difference is that John is more clear in his belief in a first coming than is Paul; but that is entirely immaterial to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the way early Christians talked about the Second Coming can be used to infer their belief as to the existence of a first coming or not.

And your nonsense about borrowing the word from Paul and having it change meaning over time (while other words apparently went unborrowed—and unchanged?) is just that: nonsense. Assumptions heaped atop assumptions in a desperate attempt to stabilize a wobbly argument.

And you're still missing my point, mostly because you seem incapable of grasping, let alone constructing, a coherent argument. So like a few others here who have done so after a time of beating their heads against the wall, I'm giving up on you. Only I'll do it sooner, so as not to give myself too severe a headache.

Earl Doherty

LOL. Fail!

JonA · 04-23-2012, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

To me this sounds allegorical. In fact, later in Galatians 4, Paul says this explicitly:

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants.

Clearly, there is more to consider here than just a naive acceptance that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" means Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary.

The obvious counter to this argument is that since Paul is so straightforward in telling us when his stories are to be taken as allegory (going even so far as to lay out the interpretation of that allegory!) we should be slow in declaring something as allegorically intended when Paul has not described it as being so.

EarlDoherty · 04-23-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

The mainstream analysis, though, tends to just accept that when Paul said jebus was "born of a woman" and was "born under law" , that this refers to a human being on earth. A perfectly reasonable position to take.

No it is not a perfectly reasonable position to take, given a context (the entire non-Gospel record of the first century) which sends us so many outright signals that there is something wrong with imposing the Gospel picture of a human incarnation on everything else. When that kind of anomaly is present, no discipline worth its salt simply says, well, none of that matters, "born of woman" is undoubtedly authentic, and it undoubtedly refers to what we would in normal parlance take it to mean. That's pig-headed, agenda-driven blindness, not worthy of any mainstream scholarship.

What true scholarship would do is question the basis of the anomaly, with nothing rejected for consideration. It takes an honest, open-minded look through Galileo's telescope to see what the fuss is about and whether there might actually be moons circling Jupiter, and if so, what that would do to the comfortable reliance on the Book of Joshua that the sun goes around the earth. What Ehrman and others do instead is try to consign Galileo to house arrest and the threat of the stake.

Earl Doherty

Grog · 04-23-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

The obvious counter to this argument is that since Paul is so straightforward in telling us when his stories are to be taken as allegory (going even so far as to lay out the interpretation of that allegory!) we should be slow in declaring something as allegorically intended when Paul has not described it as being so.

so here:

"My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you"

We understand this to be that Paul was actually feeling labor pains? Perhaps pychosomatically? I always read this as figurative, but he does not say so...

And then, you would agree that here also, Paul is not speaking figuratively:

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

"rulers of this age" often taken figuratively as "Romans by proxy" and not literally as Paul has been shown to mean, demonic powers. (see Lee, 1970)

Or this:

"The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

This isn't figurative?

Yes, you have an easy "counter" but not a persuasive one. You have to show that Paul typically is careful to tell his readers when he is speaking figapuratively, and when not.

aa5874 · 04-23-2012, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

so here:

"My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you"

We understand this to be that Paul was actually feeling labor pains? Perhaps pychosomatically? I always read this as figurative, but he does not say so...

When did Paul feel those labour pains??? Which century???

JonA · 04-23-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

The obvious counter to this argument is that since Paul is so straightforward in telling us when his stories are to be taken as allegory (going even so far as to lay out the interpretation of that allegory!) we should be slow in declaring something as allegorically intended when Paul has not described it as being so.

so here:

"My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you"

We understand this to be that Paul was actually feeling labor pains? Perhaps pychosomatically? I always read this as figurative, but he does not say so...

And then, you would agree that here also, Paul is not speaking figuratively:

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

"rulers of this age" often taken figuratively as "Romans by proxy" and not literally as Paul has been shown to mean, demonic powers. (see Lee, 1970)

Or this:

"The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

This isn't figurative?

Yes, you have an easy "counter" but not a persuasive one. You have to show that Paul typically is careful to tell his readers when he is speaking figapuratively, and when not.

I guess a figurative expression and an allegorical story are equivalent.

Oops.

thief of fire · 04-23-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

The mainstream analysis, though, tends to just accept that when Paul said jebus was "born of a woman" and was "born under law" , that this refers to a human being on earth. A perfectly reasonable position to take.

No it is not a perfectly reasonable position to take, given a context (the entire non-Gospel record of the first century) which sends us so many outright signals that there is something wrong with imposing the Gospel picture of a human incarnation on everything else.

This is what is known as a red herring, if we take the definition given in the first line of the Wiki article, which states.

Quote:

A red herring is a clue or piece of information which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue.

Your mention of the gospels is a red herring. It's irrelevant.

It is perfectly reasonable to interpret "born of a woman born under law" as referring to a human being.

Grog · 04-23-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

This is what is known as a red herring, if we take the definition given in the first line of the Wiki article, which states.

Your mention of the gospels is a red herring. It's irrelevant.

It is perfectly reasonable to interpret "born of a woman born under law" as referring to a human being.

Hercules was also said to be born of a woman, He was no less mythical.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.