Vorkosigan

I have no quarrel with an MJ who resided on earth. After all, the writer of Mark has him move across an allegorical landscape of Galilee....I just don't think that is what Paul means.

Chris Weimer

Vorkosigan,

What evidence do we have of syncretism in the earliest strata of Christian belief? This does include Paul.

Vorkosigan

IMHO the Savior who must die is a non-Jewish belief, not a Jewish one. So is the abrogation of food laws (just like the Zulu slaughtering their cattle) and the comments on divorce. So are the Cynic sayings, which appear unblushingly side by side with Jewish ones. Ascent-descent and Divine mediator figures are widespread throughout the world and represent a culture medium for the new religion. The cult meal strikes me as non-Jewish as well. Why do you ask?

Vorkosigan

krosero

The suicide bombers (who predate Heaven's Gate). And I don't know if Jim Jones' group thought they were going to heaven precisely, but that is a similar suicide preceding Heaven's Gate.

We were talking about the firmament. If you want to talk about the underworld, historicist Christianity also has a descent there.

We certainly agree here.

Chris Weimer

Did he originally have to die? It can be argued that suffering was necessary. Dying may have been an ex post facto belief stemming from the death of Jesus.

Where in the surrounding cultures was divorce and food laws discussed? It seems to me that they merely stemmed from Jewish debate.

If Paul could have been affected by surrounding schools of philosophy, why could not have Jesus also?

Which religions in particular? Could you go into more detail on this?

It certainly doesn't strike me as pagan. In fact, it was condemned by the pagans as cannibalism. And Judaism did have ritual feasts, plenty of them in fact.

Wouldn't you think it to be relevant to the topic at hand?

Chris Weimer

Sure there were ascent-descent, but where does a deity die and then is resurrected to full life?

TedM

May I ask why? You stated that it is clear he means "that other place" but I see nothing that makes that clear at all.. What are the main verses you see that supports a MJ as not being on earth?

By the way, did you see my post of Romans 9:4-5, which seems to say that Jesus was of the Israelite race, according to the flesh?

youngalexander

Surely you are not inviting me to indulge in 'parallelism'? You have recently sed It is not the precise details of each saviour god that are in correspondance, but their conformance to the same mythical pattern. What was to become Christianity was in competition with numerous other saviour gods. Clearly it had features which stood out from the ruck.

Also, according to Carrier (TET, pg 110), 1st century Jewish sects were capable of Why should a little sublunar flesh have worried Paul or Cephas and gang?

Don't mind a bit Gaku mate. In the first place I'd say that I find the singularity and mode of expression rather odd. Why is there just this one reference to Jesus' birth and to his mother. Not appropriate at Gal [4:4] perhaps, but surely some mention of such an extraordinary birth with all those attendant shepherds, wise men and so forth would have been pertinent somewhere in the letters? Of course, that didn't really happen did it? What did happen? Well, Paul isn't saying that's for sure. Why not?

One reason that I have seen advanced in a number of places is that writing was expensive, materials in short supply, time was short - whatever. The recipients of these missives were already fully cognizant of the details re Jesus earthly sojourn and did not require a refresher course. Why then did they need to be told that Jesus was 'born of woman'? You see, if we are going to be simple minded about it, the point cuts both ways.

However, as mentioned in post#58, I have been doing a little light reading of late. Particularly of the social science take on 1st century Mediterranean culture. Gal [4] is drawing an analogy between the coming of age of sons (who in their minority are no better than slaves) and the Galations, who are likewise 'slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe'. Just as a Mediterranean minor 'is under guardians and trustees until the date fixed by his father. (And) so it is with us'. Just as the Galations have been 'born of a women, under the law' so it is with God's own Son when he is sent 'to purchase freedom for the subjects of the law, in order that we might attain the status of sons'. Paul is impressing upon his flock the relevance of Christ's situation to their own.

Also, need I point out Isaiah 7:14,
‘A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. . . ‘
may have had some influence, and that being 'born of a woman' and having a god for a father is standard practice for the Hero.

Ah, but you forget that we have also read what you, TedM, krosero, Gibson and numerous others have had to say. On the other hand there have been Carrier, TH and a range of agnostic views. We have been at this for some years now. I reckon that we have sampled a fair range of opinion.

I do not read Greek, altho I had better learn some quick since I'll be there during all of April. Consequently I have to rely upon the opinion of those who do. As I sed on the original thread where the 'controversy' is raging, I have followed the 'debate' as best I can. Earl gives his reading, points to other scholars who regard it as plausible and Carrier seems to be generally in agreement. You seem to think that this is a killer issue, but it is just one small point to be weighed and assessed. Whatever the probability, it is certainly not zero. Thus it does not nullify Earl's theory and the silences, which I repeat, are the main game, and remain to be explained.

Amaleq13

Perhaps to differentiate his gospel from those who preached an adoptionist gospel?

TedM

It seems Paul answers this in the very next verse: "to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons."

In other words, he became just like the offspring of Abraham in order to redeem them. His act of redemption enables those redeemed to in turn become just like him--sons of God.

Mentioning Mary in this verse is completely unnecessary for him to make this point. The fact that it isn't there argues IMO against a later interpolation also.

For those that see "under the law" as something else, take a look at Romans 9:4-5, which says Christ was of the Israeli's race according to the flesh. Whether Paul really knew that to be a fact is not clear, but it seems likely that this is what he literally believed, in the absence of hardly any evidence from Paul to the contrary.

ted