andrewcriddle

If the woman symbolises Israel (which is IMO probable) then since Israel in this context is a collective entiry upon Earth the birth of the man-child from the woman is also presumably an event upon earth.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Good point.

The woman and the child both represent collective groups.

Jake Jones IV

Solo

You are dangling a red herring, Jeffrey. "Pre-existent" does not mean "eternal", it means existing (presumably "en morphe theou") prior to bio-birth. Paul is vague about the dimensions of his liturgical time. We know though that in the direction of the future he did not consider the Son co-extending with God (1 Cor 15:27-28). God is the ultimate reality to Paul.

Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So if he emptied himself of the form of God (sounds like volition is implied in that), and was made something else than the form of God (presumably by God), WHEN did that happen ?

Can it work any different than with Paul who "was set apart before [being] born" (Gal 1:15) ? Don't think so.

I have not read the arguments you cite.

Jiri

spamandham

This does not seem unreasonable to me, but how do we go about determining if Paul had this mystical idea in mind rather than an ordinary human birth? I think that the allusions further down in Gal 4:21-26 give strong support to the idea that the birth being referred to in 4:4 is mystical rather than literal, and the nearly endless language about children, births, adoption, etc. used in nonliteral senses throughout Gal 4 indicate the same thing. I also think it is relevant that the phrase "Son" was used instead of "Jesus". I don't think this was just poetic license on Paul's part. I think it he did it on purpose as a reference back to similar language used in Isaiah where the nation of Israel is anthropomorphicized to be a slave. I might speculate that Paul is saying "we were born under the law as slaves, but now we have become adopted children of god through the Son." I might also speculate that the "Son" is not a physical person, but a mystical presence of god.

I can drawn connections between these things, and possibly even make a consistent argument, but I don't know if it holds any water.

Uhg. ...so much effort expended trying to figure out what Paul meant by this phrase, and we don't even have reasonable certainty he wrote it.

rlogan

It seems a little too elaborate, yes, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. A poem with a rhyme and a song with a cadence are very simple devices on the other hand.


Nobody has yet to point out that the texts do not themselves give testimony to an oral tradition.

That is of course because they are perpetrating fraud to begin with in the pretense that they are written so close to the events they allege.

So here we sit, for the most part, arguing about whether there was an accurate oral transmission regarding events that were later fraudulently authored as if they were close in time to the mythical events.

We have no writings commenting on accuracy in capturing an initial oral transmission, nor disagreements with one. In fact, it's pretty much exactly the opposite. We have Marcion and etc. pulling "ancient" documents out of their hats to war with one another in battles over the tenets of nascient Christianity.

Llyricist

No No, you have to choose, either maybe it was interpolated or he meant it mystically. You can't leave both options open, it simply wouldn't be fair to those that argue historocity, or something..... somehow the fact that there are more possibilities consistent with a mythical Christ than there are for an historical one is "intellectually dishonest" .... or something. :huh:

It seems to be extra frustrating for some that the only historical anchors (or straws to grasp) to be found in "genuine" Paul are "born of a woman", "kata sarka" and "brother of the lord".

That being said, I'm with spin... but I lean toward myth, or at most a person so remote from the stories as to be unrecognizable, possibly even one or more of Josephus' Jesuses (Jesii?) that rlogan mentions from time to time.

Vorkosigan

ynquier, can you give us a list of, say, five prominent skeptics who doubted the existence of Pilate (mentioned in several ancient texts) prior to the discovery of that stone? We went over this before and were unable to find any.

Michael

jakejonesiv

It is perfectly valid to propose alternate (even mutually exclusice) scenerios. Peter Kirby made an argument quite similar to this in his chapter of The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (or via: amazon.co.uk) page 234.

Jake Jones IV

Clivedurdle

Could we have some respect please, like writing PBUH when mentioning that name!

Solo

Thanks, spamandham. Unfortunately, I have nothing outside of what I am presenting on the board that I am ready to show, yet.

Jiri