Chili

To make it known thath we are dealing with a rebirth from the woman who never left Eden and who was 100% woman and not human and therefore without sin.

Born under the law is to show that the law of Moses, as the heart of the mythology, is wat caused this rebirth to come about.

Kapyong

Gday Don,

I see numerous examples where "born of woman" is a phrase which means "human" in general. It's a simple metaphor and makes clear sense. None of them appear to be arguing against the claim that a specific person was NOT "born of woman" - rather it's just another way of saying "human".


Two of your examples DO mention specific people :

* Moses - who was "born of woman" specifically in CONTRAST to the others in heaven who were not.

* Eve - who was NOT "born of woman" at all


Neither of theses examples emphasize historical persons were "born of woman" as way of arguing AGAINST those who said they were NOT.

But Paul argues that Jesus WAS "born of woman" in a way that DOES suggest exactly that, when others DID argue against a physical Jesus (even the early epistles mention such non physical believers.)

This argues that the belief of Jesus NOT being "born of woman" was quite early, even before Paul.

None of your examples are quite like Paul.


Well, that goes to Paul's actual meaning of "born of woman".

I think Paul means Jesus is born in all persons (or maybe all Jews and good gentiles) as their 'soul' or something like that - "Christ in you, the hope of glory".

In that sense, Jesus is born in all of us, "born of (all) women".


K.

spin

For Jesus to be a sacrificial substitute for real people (ie to perform his salvific act), isn't it necessary for the theology to see him as a real person? (This says nothing about his reality, but about the necessities of the theology.)


spin

GakuseiDon

I don't quite see the logic here. If "born of woman" could be put in to combat docetic beliefs (to show that he had flesh), but Paul also meant "Jesus is born in all persons as their 'soul'", then how can it be used to combat docetic belief?

Chili

I see this to be needed for the transition from te OT to the NT, which then was the basis for him to be the first Christian where upon Rome was built and we stand as NT pople. We are said to be the 'grafted branches' and so have our origin in their Genesis where we come full circle when we 'find' ourself?

Then I also see Jesus as 'the way' but not 'the end' and so he is not born in us but Christ is born in us . . . which is not really Christ but is that which we are in our genetic make-up that contains our lineage on our father's side and this is what we call Christ in Christendom. We then become Jesuit-by-nature (is follower of Jesus) until we have our ego crucified and go through our own Resurrection, Ascension, Assumption and Coronation as mental stages of maturity.

The word 'real' may have a different meaning here since real is not historic but will have its origin in history in that eternity has a manifested beginning but no end AS the continuity of infinity which itself has no beginning and no end and so needs a designated identity to be known in theology.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, I would be the last to say Paul's writing is logical :-)
He's a religious believer and experiencer, maybe mentally unbalanced, and his writings have been tampered with.


But I think it could have been something like this :

Paul saw Jesus as a real being who lived and moved in some heaven, some non-physical sphere, some reflection of earth.

Paul's Jesus and his actions directly affects us on earth - Jesus' crucifixion in heaven changed things for us down here.

Paul sees some direct connection between Jesus and humans, especially in himself who has been thru some special experience "now my old man is crucified with Jesus."

As a result of that, Paul saw Jesus is really here on earth, by being in him, and in others. Jesus takes flesh by being born in us. But his words are not very clear.

Others came to see Jesus' actions as earth as being a phantom who was actually seen and heard. I think this view was rather early. Paul's arguments about "born of woman" and "seed of David" and "flesh" are all religious and seem to be about spiritual concepts.

It's not like he says Jesus was born "of Joseph son of Johaichim in the town of Bethlehem, during Augustus 31st year" when he had plenty of opportunity to.


Later still, others wrote stories about a historical physical Jesus - and that version won out. But I don't think Paul ever even HEARD of that version.


K.

GakuseiDon

Makes as much sense as most other mythicist theories, I suppose.

mountainman

But are any of the 14 Pauline letters "genuine and authentic"?
First there were the fourteen and now there are ....
Dont you think it might be wise to determine authenticity before analysis?

Doug Shaver

Yes, but those expectations seem to arise from a presupposition that Western civilization cannot have been mistaken for the past 2,000 years about how its predominant religion got started.

Solo

Psalm 2:7 : the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Jiri