Doug Shaver

Not saying I couldn't be guilty of that, but at least I try really hard not to be. But if it's a mistake even critical thinkers can make, how much more susceptible to it would be people trying to accommodate old religious ideas to some new concepts?

I have seen apologists make some pretty big deals out of differences that I think are a lot more trivial than that between a human being and a spirit being.

jakejonesiv

1. No. The Son of God is a spirit. This is mythical/mystical language.
2. If he did, he never said so.

On related imagery, what do you make of the child born to the woman in Revelation chapter 12?

Jake Jones

Ben C Smith

That might be a promising debate.

Sure, son of God is mystical or theological. But born of a woman is normally quite literal, even in deeply theological texts like the Dead Sea scrolls or Job.

Not really sure about Revelation 12.

Spam and Ham, a mystical text can contain historical nuggets or literal elements. This is not either-or.

You seem to be saying that because Galatians is mainly a theological text it cannot contain literal expressions. What mincemeat such a rule would make of texts from around the world. The Dead Sea scrolls are highly symbolic, metaphorical, and mystical; what does the expression born of a woman mean in them? Likewise Job; what does that expression mean in Job?

In other Pauline passages the son of God is in fact Jesus Christ (Romans 1.4), who died for us (Galatians 2.20-21) and about whom Paul preached (2 Corinthians 1.19). Now suddenly the son of God is potential godliness in all of us? I daresay it is not difficult to disagree with such a reading. I find myself doing so without even trying.

Ben.

Solo

By this definition then I would not be George W. Bush's contemporary because I live in Canada, right ?

I take it you have never been around people who are strongly religious. Paul was an obssesively religious man, and he appears to have suffered from bipolar disorder (aka manic-depression) which is marked by wild fluctuations of mood, from the highest flights of euphoric ecstasy to the deepest lows of despair. Some people with this profile in their middle-age develop acutely psychotic symptoms.

Paul (as the legendary "Saul") likely came into contact with the "Jesus movement" (which was not Christanity yet) through direct or indirect contact with a group of Greek speaking Jewish exiles from Jerusalem. We don't know where, but the circumstantial evidence points to the outside of Palestine. He, a pious Pharisee, was deeply offended by their philosophy and practices. What evidently offended him most was their ridiculous view of their departed idol "Jesus", who they admitted was executed but whom they held to have been a great power on earth, a righteous man, whom God resurrected to inaugurate Israel's restoration, and who having been rejected by his generation and killed by lawless men, sits in heaven on the right hand of God and will come back in Judgement, at the end of time, which Jesus and James proclaim draws near.

Paul thought this was all ridiculous rubbish and blasphemy. As an urbane, cosmopolitan Greek, he scoffed at the idea that God would have chosen a lowly, uneducated peasant from Galilee to restore Israel. As a pious Jew, Paul was deeply offended by some of the things people said Jesus taught, and did, and by his reputed disdain for observance.

He militated against the Jesus assemblies, and badmouthed Jesus as an impostor. Then, as Doherty reads the Acts, Jesus knocked Paul off his donkey when the latter traveled to Damascus. Well, what most likely happened is that Paul suffered an episode of acute manic excitement, in which the "truth" about Jesus was revealed to Paul by God himself. Paul was converted, or seen in a different, modern way, Paul's bipolarity became acute and attained permanent paranoid fixtures. Paul started to proclaim Jesus as the Christ, not the living individual, traditioned by the groups that he opposed, and continued to oppose after his conversion (!!!), but the heavenly Christ that lives in all of us and awaits us, if we only be pure and spiritual as Paul is.

That is the way I reckon it was. If it sounds strange, it's not my fault.

It's like they say, whenever two Jews argue, you'll get three different opinions on everything.

Jiri

Solo

No, even though 4:13-14 are quite significant as they follow the train of Paul's thought, the real cognitive issue becomes revealed by 4:12:

Brethern, I beseech you, become as I am, for also I have become as you are(οτι καγω ως υμεις)

This IMHO articulates Paul's belief in his own higher nature and supernatural origin.

Jiri

No Robots

Gotcha. I still think 4:14 is great, though. There you have Paul saying that he was received "as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." So Paul is saying that he himself is a myth, eh? That he comes from the supralunar realm? That both he himself and Christ are mythical beings? Hilarious!

BTW, I thought your post explaining Paul's conversion was quite good. I would say, though, that there is no need to suggest that he suffered from mental illness. I think it more probable that his sheer intensity accounts for everything.

dzim77

And apparently Paul was starting a movement where people demostrated their love and commitment by tearing out their eyeballs and giving them to one another as well!

He's using figurative language or exageration to emphasize a point. In v.14 Paul is merely saying that he was received with kindness and respect as a 'messenger' from God.

Amaleq13

No, it is generally assumed for every other individual on the planet but Paul felt compelled to assert that Jesus was born of a woman. Metaphorical interpretations notwithstanding, the most obvious goal of such an assertion is to establish the humanity of the offspring by asserting the humanity of the mother.

I don't know how one establishes such a probability given such an ambiguous starting point but I think it is highly likely that such a phrase would be used by a person who believed that a divine entity had been incarnated. That's why I don't see this as any sort of argument against an HJ. IMO, a reinterpretation away from the most obvious meaning has to follow from establishing a mythical Jesus belief some other way.

No Robots

Right. So why do you not accept that his references to an otherworldly Christ are, likewise, a figurative way of talking about a real person?

Amaleq13

You know of examples where the phrase is used to establish or assert the humanity of a particular individual or you know of examples where the phrase is used as a reference to humanity (eg Mt 11:11)?

It has been my understanding that other examples fall into the latter category but not the former.