Dreadnought

If you're going to claim that the Messiah has come and has left the building again without actually having a specific contender in mind there are a few obvious things that needs to be established: He needs to be born, he'll need to be Jewish, he needs to be separate from God in some conceivable way and he needs to be dead. The last one because otherwise you'll be asked where he is.

Could it be that Pauls vagueness, which we now perceive as mysticism, in describing Jesus stems from him not having a specific person in mind?

"Born of a woman" and "seed of David" are fairly obvious requirements for a messiah and so safe to use. "Born of a man" would be unusual, but that it isn't "born of a virgin" ought to give non-liveral christians food for thought. As for "seed of David" I suspect that there were quite a lot of descendants of David about given the number of wives and concubines he and Solomon were claimed to have had.

Dreadnought

Isn't it obvious that the first christians gave them the name "Ebionites" and not that Ebionites were the first christians?

Ben C Smith

Eusebius does not call the Ebionites the first Christians, though they (or their predecessors, really) may have been. You have misinterpreted the text.

The line is: These the first Christians named Ebionites, and it means: The first [Christians] named these men Ebionites (the word Christians is not in the Greek text). The word order is just a little bit archaic for modern English. Another translation reads more clearly: The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites.

And yes, I agree that the Ebionites thought Christ was just a man, born of ordinary intercourse between a man and a woman.

Ben.

stuart shepherd

I'll forward your comment to Eusebius because he wrote the comment about the Ebionites.

stuart shepherd

stuart shepherd

In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus is assumed to be the son of God because of the virgin birth.

But check out Paul......

Romans 1:3-4 (King James Version)
3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

According to Paul, Jesus has become the son of God because of his resurrection rather than being a son because of a virgin birth.

stuart shepherd

Chili

Yeah, "Christ was just a man," like us Ebionites, and 20.000 denominations later things still have not changed. Do you see anything wrong with that Ben?

Chili

That is because only a virgin birth can lead to a resurrection to which the magi will testify and if you do not agree with this ask yourself where Joseph was when the magi looked and saw Mary and the child before they entered (Matthew 2:11).

dog-on

I think Paul believed that the scriptures appear to indicate that Jesus was a Jew and a descendant of David.

See what I did there?...

These words have a clear meaning. This clear meaning does not change the fact that are simply axiomatic.

The words appear to indicate that Paul mined the OT for his revelations. You have no clue what Paul actually believed...he could have been absolutely pissing himself while he was writing this crap...

There is no need to redefine any particular word in order to argue that Paul had no knowledge of a recent gospel JC...

Do you know what an AXIOM is?

...and exactly what was preached by this "assembly of God"? Who were these people? Where did they come from? Any information about them would be appreciated...

ynquirer

Perhaps Marcion is authority in this case, but Ehrman is not. Nothing in Ehrman warrants the opinion that “born of a woman, born under the law” in Gal 4:4 may be an interpolation. What he says is that there was a substitution in some later versions of the Latin NT of natum ex muliere (= “born of a woman”) for the older factum ex muliere (= “made of a woman”). And in coordination with this substitution, another one of γενομενον for γεννωμενον in a few later Greek witnesses. All in all, these substitutions were intended to reinforce the orthodox position vis-a-vis Marcion and other heterodox writers. But sheer interpolation - where does Ehrman say that much?

Actually, Paul uses repetitions of key words to lend stress to his writing, κατα being a conspicuous example. Here are some of the most famous instances in which κατα is so used:

• Rom 1:3-4 … κατα σαρκα … κατα πνευμα …
• 1 Cor 15:3-4 … Χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας και οτι εταφη και οτι εγηργερται τη ημερα τη τριτη κατα τας γραφας
• Phil 3:5-6 … κατα νομον Φαρισαιος, κατα ζηλφς διωκων την εκκλησιαν …

Likewise, Paul often uses forms of the verb γινομαι in such emphatic repetition:

• 1 Cor 14:20 Αδελφοι, μη παιδια γενεσθε ταις φρεσιν αλλα τη κακια νηπιαζετε, ταις δε φρεσιν τελειοι γενεσθε
• 2 Cor 8:14 … και το εκεινων περισσευμα γενηται εις το υμων ιστερημα, οπως γενηται ισοτες

And also

• Gal 4:4 … γενομενον εκ γυναικος, γενομενον υπο νομον

Therefore, “born of a woman, born under the law” is hardly an interpolation, as it is typically a Pauline construction.

In reference to Isaiah 7:14, it in Hebrew says עלמה, which means “a virgin.” Accordingly, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew into Greek παρθενον. If Paul, likewise Isaiah, wished to mean “a virgin” - Chili’s contention, too - why did he write γενομενον εκ γυναικος instead of γενομενον εκ παρθενου?

Furthermore, if Paul wishes to say that something happened according to the scripture, he writes κατα τας γραφας. Now, he uses the latter clause just once, in 1 Cor 15:3-4, and he then fails to mention γενομενον εκ γυναικος. He mentions the latter in reference to Jesus just once, too, in Gal 4:4, and he then fails to mention κατα τας γραφας. As Paul once says that Jesus died and was buried and raised on the third day according to the scripture, may anyone feel warranted to conclude that anything Paul says might be construed as being said according to the scripture? Loose logic.

To the contrary, Paul says γενομενον εκ γυναικος, γενομενον υπο νομον. Rhetorical repetition of γενομενον quite clearly indicates that εκ γυναικος and υπο νομον are put on equal footing. What does “born under the law” mean? The “law” is not the natural law, as created by God at the moment of making the universe; it is not the eternal laws that rule the angels, archangels, the virgin in perpetuity, and other entities that might be styled more or less mythical. The “law” is the Mosaic law, the law enacted in Mount Sinai for the historical Israelites at a specific moment of their history - the beginning of the crossing of the desert - and later on come down to rule the surviving tribes - the Jews. Therefore, “born under the law” unequivocally means “born a historical Jew.”

This is a realistic reading of Gal 4:4.

Chili

"Born under the Law" means that Joseph was reborn as a direct result of the Law that was given to Moses for the conviction of sin (Mosaic Law). For this law to be effective it must be carved into the human heart as if in stone so it can and will convict the outer man of sin and therefore is effective only for the historical Jew. Paul could have said that the messiah was 'born out of the tradition' for not just the Law but also the virtues of the clan and more specifically those of the very lineage of Joseph are needed to make sin resonate in the mind of the believer (Nietzsche's anvil effect comes to mind here).

"Born of a woman" is sufficient to equate 'woman' with a virgin because the 'firstborn' is reborn here and that can happen only once in Judaism proper. The virgin birth concept exists only to identify it as an immaculate conception that was incipient from God instead of carnal desire as per John 1:13 where carnal desire is added to force a rebirth upon the believer. This would be a rebirth from Eve wherein the firstborn is from his mother's womb untimely ripped. Note here that 'woman' implies 'not-human' and therefore free of sin and virgin as such.