Amaleq13

Thanks. I think this is the paragraph:

The summary description of the hardships undergone by Jesus includes that Jesus was buried "in the sand." This Coptic phrase is sometimes translated nonliterally to mean "shamefully," but it should be made clear that the very reason why the burial is shameful is that it is a burial in the sand. To be wrapped in a new linen cloth and placed in a rock-hewn tomb is not the description of a shameful burial. Thus, the Secret Book of James reflects a tradition that Jesus was buried in the sand or, to speak generally, in a dishonorable makeshift shallow grave instead of in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

TedM

I have been suspicous of the tomb story for various reasons (differences with regard to the accounts of burial). This, if an accurate translation, would add to my suspicions.

ted

andrewcriddle

IIUC buried shamefully is a conjectural emendation of a phrase that as written in the Nag Hammadi Codex reads buried in the sand, it is not a paraphrase of the text as written.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Would you agree, though, that a burial in sand would be considered shameful?

andrewcriddle

Very likely yes.

I'm going to try and look into this some more.

One issue is that the text seems to be speaking of things which are likely to happen to Christians and which previously happened to Christ. It doesn't seem to be focused on the details of Jesus' death as such.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew's follow-up thread on this subject can be found here: Buried in Sand?

NOGO

If the Christ was supposed to be a man then why bother mentioning that he was born of a woman. Why qualify him this way if this is not a discriminator.

These are just borrowed words that make absolutely no sense to me.
If I believe in Jesus then I an not longer subject to the law?
Wow!!!
What this really translates to is this ...
Christians are still obliged to honour their parents, not to kill etc etc.
But they have chosen to ignore other Jewish laws such as the food laws.

What do you make of Revelations 12 and Paul claiming to have met a man in the third heaven and he was not sure where he was in the flesh or not.

More reasonable to us, maybe.
But to Paul? I am not so sure.

TedM

I think it is highlight the adoption as sons of believers.

Whether Paul's theology makes sense to you or not is irrelevant. As in the case above, I think the purpose of qualifying Jesus as a Jew under the law is to highlight the redemption of those under the law.

Which makes the point the best?:

1. When the time had fully come God sent forth his son to redeem those who were under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might received adoption as sons.

2. When the time had fully come God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might received adoption as sons.

The point seems obvious to me: Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman to highlight the idea that ANYONE born of a woman could become a son of God too. Paul says that Jesus was born of the law to highlight the idea that only one under the law could break it's curse, and allow redemption that enables those who believe to become adopted sons of God.


What do YOU think is the purpose of including "born of a woman" and "born under the law"?


Rev 12 isn't by Paul. His trip to the 3rd heaven is so vague that we can't conclude much from it.

Have you given up on the other thread about Jesus' gospel vs Paul's?

ted

Zeichman

Ted, that's a really interesting idea. Is there other evidence of such adoptionism in Pauline or deutero-Pauline epistles?

TedM

Romans 8:14-17

NOGO

This person that he met in the third heaven in or out of the body, was this person "under the law"?

Paul says that to the Jews he became as a Jew. To those under the law he became as under the law since he did not consider himself to be under the law anymore.

Why the second statement? Are there people who are not Jews and are under the law?

Paul's encounter with Jesus is equally vague and brief.
Did he see a man as some claim?
Was this one of those encounters like in the third heaven?

The point is that we cannot trust Paul and assume rational thinking.
We cannot assume that "under law" means "on earth".

Revelation 12 was not written by Paul nonetheless is it thinking of the times.
It is Christian thinking.
Was the child in Rev 12 Jesus?
Was this child bord of a woman?
Was he under law?