Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-18-2003, 06:51 PM

In Doherty's recent feedback he makes a new argument for the phrases "born of a woman" and "of the seed of David" referring to a mythical being and not a human. (Scroll down 2/3 of the page to Response to Julian: Isaiah 7:14 / "Born of Woman")

Quote:

Declarations about "born of woman" are usually made while ignoring its surrounding context. The phrase is introduced by the statement that "in the fullness of time, God sent his Son". Yet what, in that context, has been "sent"? The very next sentence, using precisely the same verb, states that God has "sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts." (The root verb of "sent" is the same as that regularly used for the sending of the Holy Spirit.) In the preceding chapter, what is it that has "arrived" in the present time? In 3:23-25, Paul states it clearly: it is the arrival of "faith", not of Jesus himself. (The occasional translation of verse 24, "until Christ came" stands in contradiction to verses 23 and 25, and can be alternately translated as "to lead us to Christ," as the NIV and NEB recognize.) Furthermore, the subject of the verb "redeem" ("sent his Son . . . in order that he might redeem those under the law"), while technically ambiguous, reads best as referring to God himself doing the redeeming in the present time and not the Son. Such contextual features ought to cast doubt on the phrase "born of woman" as referring to the recent birth on earth of Jesus of Nazareth.

But an even more important objection is usually overlooked. It is often argued that the phrase "born of woman" in Jewish writings always refers to a human being, that it was a Jewish idiom for a human being. Comparisons are made to Job (e.g., 14:1) or Sirach (10:18), or even with Matthew and Luke's reference (from Q) to John the Baptist as "born of woman" (Mt. 11:11, Lk. 7:28). Therefore, it is claimed, Paul must be using the phrase with the same meaning. But there is a serious problem here. Paul does not say "born of woman." Rather, he says something which all English translations render with those words. In fact, the words Paul does use in Greek do not conform to the other Greek versions of that allegedly same phrase, either in the Septuagint or the Gospels. Nor can we appeal to the Hebrew versions, because this begs the question that the phrase in Hebrew is the equivalent of Paul's own Greek phrase. In other words, there are no instances of Paul's specific phrase to be found with the standard meaning of being "born" (physically, humanly) of woman. Consequently, all arguments based on this comparison collapse.

What does Paul say? He notably does not use the standard word for "born" (genna�) which appears in all the Greek passages appealed to for comparison. (Matthew and Luke use an adjectival relative of the verb.) Instead, Paul uses the verb ginomai. While the latter verb is occasionally used for "born" in Greek, it has a much broader application, in the sense of "come into existence," "be created," "arise, occur, come to pass," etc. We are not justified in taking a similar phrase which nevertheless uses a different verb and start by automatically assuming that the two phrases 'must' have the same meaning. This ought to be compellingly obvious.

In fact, if "born (genna�) of woman" is so common to refer to a human being, and Paul is referring to a human being, why does he not use the standard phrase? What would impel him to change the verb? Does this very change not imply that Paul does not intend it to have the same meaning? (Paul's own verb ginomai, by the way, is the one he uses in Romans 1:3 when declaring Jesus as "arising from the seed of David." If he meant "born of the seed of David" in the human sense, why did he�or the writer of this piece of liturgy before Paul, as many scholars view it�not simply use genna�?) I have suggested that the use of the broader ginomai would fit the more mythical context which Paul's Christ inhabits, which is not recent history.

Comments from anyone who knows Greek?

Amaleq13 · 12-19-2003, 08:18 AM

I don't know Greek but I recently posted something that seems relevant to this thread in another one (A question for Mythicists). Some of it overlaps your direct quote from Doherty but I would be interested in your thoughts on the conclusions I suggest are indicated by the text:

"Let's set aside Doherty for a moment and just consider what Paul is saying here. First, he explicitly tells us in this same letter than his gospel was obtained directly from the Risen Christ and just as explicitly denies it came from any man. Later, in this same letter, he describes finally visiting the "pillars" so that men "of reputation" could approve or disapprove of his gospel to the Gentiles. Paul claims that they had no problem with it given the specific audience but he also asserts that they added nothing to his existing gospel! Apologists somehow forget or ignore this claim when they assert that Paul "must" have obtained some information from the pillars. Read Paul's claims again but keep in mind that every single assertion he makes was obtained directly from the Risen Christ and not by any alleged former disciple.

Still avoiding any reference to Doherty, Paul asserts that Jesus was "born of a woman". He doesn't use the unambiguous, clearly literal version of the verb and he doesn't provide any supporting evidence (e.g. mom's name). Let's even set that aside and assume the phrase to be a rather generic claim that "Jesus was human". That would seem to put a final end to any claim that Paul's Jesus was more of a spiritual concept than a literal man but that ignores the bizarre nature of such an assertion in the first place. The question this assertion suggests to me is: Has any other author in the history of mankind felt compelled to assert that his subject was human? I had thought that Layman had provided an answer to this question when he referenced a similar phrase associated with JBap in the Gospels. I conceded the point but I should have checked the reference first. It turns out the reference doesn't actually fit the requirement of the question. JBap is not asserted as "born of a woman", he is called greater than anyone "born of women". In other words, JBap is called greater than any human. With that reference removed as another example of an author feeling compelled to assert the humanity of his subject, we are still left with Paul's as apparently unique. Why would Paul feel it necessary to assert that Jesus had "come into existence" like a human? If we, again, consider the context of the letter to the Galatians, we find that Paul is complaining that some of his converts there have been lead astray by a "false gospel" of Christ.

It would appear that Paul's assertion is intended to counter a specific claim from this "false gospel" that Jesus was not human and, therefore, could not be considered the Messiah.

That means either the "false apostles" were claiming Jesus to have never really been human or they were claiming that Paul's Jesus was never really human.

Either way, it seems relevant that Paul does not choose to deny this claim by mentioning that the "pillars" knew the guy and hung around with him before he was killed. He also doesn't ask the Galatians who they think the Romans crucified. What he does is remind them that his information came straight from the Risen Christ and, according to that information, Jesus "came into existence" like a human.

If this was a belief included in the "false gospel", we would have belief in a non-human Jesus contemporary with Paul. How would that be possible given living former disciples?

When considered in this context, Doherty's notion of all this taking place in some mythical, spirit-realm seems more credible to me than Paul knowing about a real guy who existed at a specific point in history. I would still like more support for his "heavenly spheres" thesis but I certainly can't see this assertion from Paul as pointing in the direction of the Gospel Jesus."

12-19-2003, 09:53 AM

[
Very good Amaleq. Paul had his own conversion that caused the tumble from his 'high horse' and therefore the Gospel had come to Paul by nature (understanding must come from the heart and may later be confirmed by scripture; Jn. 5:38-9). The Risen Christ makes reference to his own conversion which makes Paul an equal to Jesus (spiritual brother of Jesus) and a Christ in his own right = a true Christian.

The confusion with "Jesus was born of woman" is modified with the description of "the woman" out of whom Jesus was born. In here it is clear that Christ was born from woman and they shall call him Jesus to indicate that Christ was born unto Joseph and the new dual identity of Joseph shall be called Jesus.

"The woman" was called Mary who was all woman and not human and therefore without sin. Our humanity is the sin nature and our womanity is our God nature (woman is not created but was taken from man to become the womb (read blueprint) of God). The virginity of Mary speaks of her complete and unstained non-rational identity (non-rational is non-human).

JBap. was "greater than any man born of woman" is a play on the word "woman." JBap was greater then any human because all humans are born with the stain of original sin (are physical beings) while Jbap was born from the netherworld of our subconscious mind and therefore out of 'parents of old' to indicate that JBap was a spiritual being that was needed to prepare the "way for the Lord." This way "way for the Lord" is the annihilation (crucifixion) of the old human identity of Joseph and the liberation of the new Christ identity that had been reborn in Joseph while he was totally beyond theology back there in Beth-le-hem when he was without "food for thought" (beyond surrender). JBap is really a bosom buddy of Jesus (his favorite apostle) whith the only difference that Jesus was Joseph's son while JBap was the reborn collective soul nature of Joseph out of which Jesus was caricatured (Joseph, of course, also was the 'great pretender' who fell off his high horse just like Paul did and so Jesus was the high horse of Joseph soon to be crucified). To be sure this is clear, let me add that John represents the rebirth of the incarnate soul nature while Jesus represents the rebirth of Joseph's contribution to this soul nature.

The birth of John just means that rebirth should not be a spur of the moment event but that it must be our rational response to an intuit (non-rational) desire before a successful renewal of the mind can follow.

The false Gospel Paul wanted to steer away from was the historical Jesus of literalism. He therefore 'wrote his own Gospel that testified to the "living Christ" equally "in us" to be found in us and not in history.

GakuseiDon · 12-19-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Still avoiding any reference to Doherty, Paul asserts that Jesus was "born of a woman". He doesn't use the unambiguous, clearly literal version of the verb and he doesn't provide any supporting evidence (e.g. mom's name). Let's even set that aside and assume the phrase to be a rather generic claim that "Jesus was human". That would seem to put a final end to any claim that Paul's Jesus was more of a spiritual concept than a literal man but that ignores the bizarre nature of such an assertion in the first place. The question this assertion suggests to me is: Has any other author in the history of mankind felt compelled to assert that his subject was human? ... ... If we, again, consider the context of the letter to the Galatians, we find that Paul is complaining that some of his converts there have been lead astray by a "false gospel" of Christ.

It would appear that Paul's assertion is intended to counter a specific claim from this "false gospel" that Jesus was not human and, therefore, could not be considered the Messiah.

Hmmm... perhaps a Marcion-style heresy in 50 CE? Interesting. It still leaves us with Paul believing in a HJ, and the problem of a lack of historical details.

Still, I don't think Paul is using the expression to try to show that Jesus was "human" after all. I think "born of a woman, born under the law" can be seem as a counterpoint to "adoption through faith".

If we look at the context around Gal 4:4. Paul is talking about inheritance. He sees Christ as "the Seed of Abraham" who inherits the promises of Abraham (Gal 3:16). He then sees Christians as inheritors by adoption through faith in Christ (Gal 3:26).

Paul seems to be contrasting two ideas:
(1) "Inheritance under the law", which Jesus fulfills by being the Seed of Abraham, therefore "born into inheritance through a woman".
(2) "Inheritance through faith", which links non-Jewish Christians to Jesus and thus to God's promise to Abraham, therefore "born into inheritance through faith in Jesus".

It can be summed up in Gal 3:28,29:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The above, in fact in the whole first half of Gal, seems to be set up for one reason: an explanation for why non-Jewish Christians don't need to be circumsized.

rlogan · 12-20-2003, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto

Comments from anyone who knows Greek?

ginomai = become

greek translator

I have to hand it to him. That was a key point.

we've talked about this before. If the apologists are translating - they have a pretty big "leg up" to begin with.

GakuseiDon · 12-20-2003, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
ginomai = become

greek translator

I have to hand it to him. That was a key point.

we've talked about this before. If the apologists are translating - they have a pretty big "leg up" to begin with.

This is what it said:
become be born happen ( pres ind med-pass )

So, how does being "ginomai-ed" by a woman make that less historical? Especially when the meaning includes "being born".

I should point out that Paul uses "ginomai" 11 times in Galatians. In fact, in Gal 3:14 we have the key phrase:

Gal 3:14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

where "might come upon" is ginomai.

In other words, Gentiles are "ginomai-ed" to the blessing of Abraham, because Jesus was "ginomai-ed" to a woman and "ginomai-ed" under the law. I suggest that it is a simple rhetorical device. (I should stress that I know absolutely nothing about ancient Greek).

Haran · 12-20-2003, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
ginomai = become

greek translator

You forgot to click the "ancient Greek" checkbox. There were more meanings for this word in ancient Greek, as GakuseiDon pointed out.

Quote:

rlogan
I have to hand it to him. That was a key point.

Unfortunately, it is a word game. He doesn't like the sense in which most think that Paul uses the word here, so he picks another definition from the lexical entry.

Before his argument would be convincing, one would need to search other writings of the time for uses of all forms of ginomai in which birth is the meaning and understand why most scholars prefer the meaning birth here.

Amaleq13 · 12-20-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Hmmm... perhaps a Marcion-style heresy in 50 CE? Interesting. It still leaves us with Paul believing in a HJ, and the problem of a lack of historical details.

An historical Jesus without historical details? No, what we have is an apparently human Jesus in Paul with no connection to history. This isn't a problem for Doherty, as I understand his thesis, because the incarnation in the "lowest heavenly sphere" would still be referred to as "human" or "human-like" despite not being on earth. If, however, that thesis cannot be sufficiently supported by the research I assume Doherty is conducting in order to present a more scholarly argument, we are left with an apparently human Jesus sacrificed at some unspecified time and place. That would certainly fit into Marcion's view and offer no problem for him to place Jesus in the historical context provided by the Gospel story. This concept also appears to be represented by Hebrews where, again ignoring Doherty's "heavenly spheres" thesis, a human Jesus seems to exist only to be sacrificed.

In addition, we would have to explain how a "Marcion-style" heresy could have existed contemporary with Paul given living disciples preaching in Jerusalem.

Quote:

Still, I don't think Paul is using the expression to try to show that Jesus was "human" after all. I think "born of a woman, born under the law" can be seem as a counterpoint to "adoption through faith".

If we look at the context around Gal 4:4. Paul is talking about inheritance. He sees Christ as "the Seed of Abraham" who inherits the promises of Abraham (Gal 3:16). He then sees Christians as inheritors by adoption through faith in Christ (Gal 3:26).

Paul seems to be contrasting two ideas:
(1) "Inheritance under the law", which Jesus fulfills by being the Seed of Abraham, therefore "born into inheritance through a woman".
(2) "Inheritance through faith", which links non-Jewish Christians to Jesus and thus to God's promise to Abraham, therefore "born into inheritance through faith in Jesus".

It can be summed up in Gal 3:28,29:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The above, in fact in the whole first half of Gal, seems to be set up for one reason: an explanation for why non-Jewish Christians don't need to be circumsized.

First, I would note that Paul clearly shows in 3:29 that he feels free to refer to Gentile Christians as "Abraham's seed" based only on their faith and that, in turn, suggests he could feel equally free to refer to Jesus as "descended from David", "born of a woman", or "born under the Law" merely by his own fundamental faith that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul starts from the faith-based assumption (divinely revealed) that Jesus is the Messiah and all subsequent claims about Jesus follow from this assumption. What they do not seem to follow is any knowledge about a living, preaching Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels.

Second, I'm not sure your comments above serve to question my earlier observations so much as they add a particular point Paul is arguing against the "false gospel". Your suggestion seems to only be connected to Paul's assertion that Jesus was "born under the law" (i.e. Paul is asserting that Jesus was human and Jewish with the two separate claims). If that is the case, can we assume that the "false gospel" was held by Jewish Christians who insisted that only a literal Jewish heritage was legitimate? That would seem to agree with Paul's description of at least some of his enemies in 2Cor11.

Is Paul arguing against Jewish Christians who are claiming that Paul's Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he a) isn't literally human and b) isn't Jewish?

Amaleq13 · 12-20-2003, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Unfortunately, it is a word game.

Why is it a "word game" to note that Paul has not chosen the most unambiguous (i.e. most literal) word available to allegedly refer to Jesus' birth?

Haran · 12-20-2003, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Why is it a "word game" to note that Paul has not chosen the most unambiguous (i.e. most literal) word available to allegedly refer to Jesus' birth?

It is Doherty's 'word game'. As I stated, he didn't like the translation most scholars provide, so he went back to the lexicon to find the meaning that best suited his agenda.

Aside from that, even if one takes the word in the sense in which it is probably most often used, one can still make sense of it as a literal birth: come of a woman, come under law.

Just as in english, there is no reason to believe that this phrase did not literally mean born of a woman and born under law.

Perhaps Paul was trying to make some sort of point with the different wording, but I seriously doubt that he was denying Christ's humanity in any way.

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

12-19-2003, 08:18 AM	#2
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I don't know Greek but I recently posted something that seems relevant to this thread in another one (A question for Mythicists). Some of it overlaps your direct quote from Doherty but I would be interested in your thoughts on the conclusions I suggest are indicated by the text: "Let's set aside Doherty for a moment and just consider what Paul is saying here. First, he explicitly tells us in this same letter than his gospel was obtained directly from the Risen Christ and just as explicitly denies it came from any man. Later, in this same letter, he describes finally visiting the "pillars" so that men "of reputation" could approve or disapprove of his gospel to the Gentiles. Paul claims that they had no problem with it given the specific audience but he also asserts that they added nothing to his existing gospel! Apologists somehow forget or ignore this claim when they assert that Paul "must" have obtained some information from the pillars. Read Paul's claims again but keep in mind that every single assertion he makes was obtained directly from the Risen Christ and not by any alleged former disciple. Still avoiding any reference to Doherty, Paul asserts that Jesus was "born of a woman". He doesn't use the unambiguous, clearly literal version of the verb and he doesn't provide any supporting evidence (e.g. mom's name). Let's even set that aside and assume the phrase to be a rather generic claim that "Jesus was human". That would seem to put a final end to any claim that Paul's Jesus was more of a spiritual concept than a literal man but that ignores the bizarre nature of such an assertion in the first place. The question this assertion suggests to me is: Has any other author in the history of mankind felt compelled to assert that his subject was human? I had thought that Layman had provided an answer to this question when he referenced a similar phrase associated with JBap in the Gospels. I conceded the point but I should have checked the reference first. It turns out the reference doesn't actually fit the requirement of the question. JBap is not asserted as "born of a woman", he is called greater than anyone "born of women". In other words, JBap is called greater than any human. With that reference removed as another example of an author feeling compelled to assert the humanity of his subject, we are still left with Paul's as apparently unique. Why would Paul feel it necessary to assert that Jesus had "come into existence" like a human? If we, again, consider the context of the letter to the Galatians, we find that Paul is complaining that some of his converts there have been lead astray by a "false gospel" of Christ. It would appear that Paul's assertion is intended to counter a specific claim from this "false gospel" that Jesus was not human and, therefore, could not be considered the Messiah. That means either the "false apostles" were claiming Jesus to have never really been human or they were claiming that Paul's Jesus was never really human. Either way, it seems relevant that Paul does not choose to deny this claim by mentioning that the "pillars" knew the guy and hung around with him before he was killed. He also doesn't ask the Galatians who they think the Romans crucified. What he does is remind them that his information came straight from the Risen Christ and, according to that information, Jesus "came into existence" like a human. If this was a belief included in the "false gospel", we would have belief in a non-human Jesus contemporary with Paul. How would that be possible given living former disciples? When considered in this context, Doherty's notion of all this taking place in some mythical, spirit-realm seems more credible to me than Paul knowing about a real guy who existed at a specific point in history. I would still like more support for his "heavenly spheres" thesis but I certainly can't see this assertion from Paul as pointing in the direction of the Gospel Jesus."

12-19-2003, 09:53 AM	#3
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	[ Very good Amaleq. Paul had his own conversion that caused the tumble from his 'high horse' and therefore the Gospel had come to Paul by nature (understanding must come from the heart and may later be confirmed by scripture; Jn. 5:38-9). The Risen Christ makes reference to his own conversion which makes Paul an equal to Jesus (spiritual brother of Jesus) and a Christ in his own right = a true Christian. The confusion with "Jesus was born of woman" is modified with the description of "the woman" out of whom Jesus was born. In here it is clear that Christ was born from woman and they shall call him Jesus to indicate that Christ was born unto Joseph and the new dual identity of Joseph shall be called Jesus. "The woman" was called Mary who was all woman and not human and therefore without sin. Our humanity is the sin nature and our womanity is our God nature (woman is not created but was taken from man to become the womb (read blueprint) of God). The virginity of Mary speaks of her complete and unstained non-rational identity (non-rational is non-human). JBap. was "greater than any man born of woman" is a play on the word "woman." JBap was greater then any human because all humans are born with the stain of original sin (are physical beings) while Jbap was born from the netherworld of our subconscious mind and therefore out of 'parents of old' to indicate that JBap was a spiritual being that was needed to prepare the "way for the Lord." This way "way for the Lord" is the annihilation (crucifixion) of the old human identity of Joseph and the liberation of the new Christ identity that had been reborn in Joseph while he was totally beyond theology back there in Beth-le-hem when he was without "food for thought" (beyond surrender). JBap is really a bosom buddy of Jesus (his favorite apostle) whith the only difference that Jesus was Joseph's son while JBap was the reborn collective soul nature of Joseph out of which Jesus was caricatured (Joseph, of course, also was the 'great pretender' who fell off his high horse just like Paul did and so Jesus was the high horse of Joseph soon to be crucified). To be sure this is clear, let me add that John represents the rebirth of the incarnate soul nature while Jesus represents the rebirth of Joseph's contribution to this soul nature. The birth of John just means that rebirth should not be a spur of the moment event but that it must be our rational response to an intuit (non-rational) desire before a successful renewal of the mind can follow. The false Gospel Paul wanted to steer away from was the historical Jesus of literalism. He therefore 'wrote his own Gospel that testified to the "living Christ" equally "in us" to be found in us and not in history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.