spamandham

Why would you assume that? I've already admitted I have none. Like I said, if it is your contention that we can determine a phrase is not being used mystically simply by noting that we never see it used mystically in nonmystical writings, you are welcome to that position, regardless of my incredulity.

spamandham

I'm using"mystical" in the sense of "mysticism". Mystics use symbolism to convey a hidden meaning that is different from what is literally said. Really good mystics are able to say things that convey one idea when interpreted literally, but have a totally different intended meaning.

A mystical writing is one in which mysticism is being communicated. A mystical thought within such a writing is one in which the intended real meaning is different from the obvious literal meaning.

Mystical writings are easily detected by looking for intentional absurdities and intentional usage of symbolism.

I would think anyone wishing to claim that Paul did not mean "born of a woman" in some mystical sense would have already been familiar with what mysticism is.

No Robots

What about when he says that he met the brethren of the Lord?

There is much learned discussion about the nature and meaning of mysticism. I think that we would have to come to some kind of consensus on this before we can discuss the nature and meaning of mysticism in Paul. I greatly admire the work of Rufus_Jones in this regard.

Ben C Smith

I think you are confusing mysticism with something else. What you are describing (literal language that actually expresses something else symbolically) sounds like allegory. Mystics sometimes use allegory, true. But that is not what mysticism means.

My familiarity with mystics is limited almost exclusively to Christian mystics. I have read Thomas a Kempis, Brother Lawrence, Madame Guyon, John of the Cross, the Russian Pilgrim, the Fioretti, and Julian of Norwich, among others. I can testify from experience that these mystics do not always or even necessarily usually write in allegory. When Julian meditates on the passion of Christ, for example, she discusses the various wounds and inflictions (thorns, scourging, and so forth). While these wounds are of course intensely symbolic on some level, they are also of course literal. I have no reason to deny that Julian really believed that Jesus really suffered real scourgings and real thorns.

My own working definition of mysticism is communication with the divine far more directly than is usual in ordinary human experience (visions, ecstasies, revelations), or the acquisition of divine knowledge through channels beyond the ordinary human gathering of information and intelligence.

Mystics often use allegory (as Paul explicitly does in Galatians 4.21-31), but that is not what makes them mystics. Paul, for example, is a mystic because he claims to have received direct revelations from God or from Christ. That does not mean that every time he puts pen to parchment he is writing nonliterally.

This is why it was vital for the rest of us to understand your meaning of the term mysticism before moving on. Under your definition of mysticism, no, Paul is not a mystic. Under mine, he is.

Ben.

jgibson000

Interesting. You have not only left "mysticism" undefined (a definition of what mysticism is that really is a description of what "mystics" allegedly do is not a definition of "mysticism"), and left up in the air what you mean by "mystical. But you have given us a description of what "mystics allegedly do that not only (a) is inaccurate and question begging because it implies that "using symbolism" is all they ever do in their writings and is something that, to my knowledge, few scholars of "mystics" and "mysticism" would agree, but (b) confuses "mystics" with allegorists.

Three responses:

1. Maybe Paul was a "bad" mystic. But more importantly:

2. Can you tell us what the ground of this claim is? That is to say, who do you think is a really good "mystic"? And what works of theirs have you read? Are they, like Paul, Jewish and from the first century? Or are they from another time and cultural milieu?

3. Do they never make historical statements even when they are engaged in allegory?

OK. So what precisely is it that's being communicated when "mysticism" is being communicated? You still haven't told us.

And is it really true that to communicate "mysticism", historical statements void of symbolic (allegorical) cannot be, or are never, used by "mystics" good or bad?

I see. But would you agree then -- as you seem to be bound to do given your criterion -- that when Augustine treats the story of the Good Samaritan as he does (the Samaritan is Jesus, the Inn is the Church, the robbers are minions of the devil, etc.) he is engaged in "mystical thought"? Would Augustine?

And is it true, as you seem to think it is, that in the writing (and in the context) in which his treatment of the Good Samaritan appears, none of the statements he makes there are historical?

They are? I thought you just said that good mystics write in such a way that we don't realize, and are unable immediately and without some effort to detect, that they are writing symbolically and that their symbolism is intentional?

And what is absurd, let alone "intentionally absurd", about claiming that we who are born of woman and born under the law, are redeemed from the law because the one who redeems was just like us and knew what it is to be "under the law" -- which, after all, is what Gal. 4:5 shows that Gal. 4:4 means? (on this, see almost any critical commentary on Galatians)

I am familiar with what mysticism is and/or has been said to be, not only from reading the works of those who traditionally have been known to be, or who have been called, mystics, but also through the studies on mystics and mysticism by William James and others.

The question is: are you? So far you have not give us the slightest bit of evidence to think that you are. On the contrary, virtually everything you have written on the topic of "mystics" and "mysticism" indicates that you are not even remotely so.

But if, as you seem to claim, you really are familiar with what "mysticism" is and with how mystics themselves and students of mysticism have defined it, perhaps you'd then tell us how your understanding of "mysticism" does and does not square up with that given by James, which, as I'm sure you know, is considered by most and experts in mysticism, "mystical" writings, and the history of the phenomenon, to be the touchstone for any definition of the subject.

Jeffrey Gibson

jjramsey

One has been pointed out earlier on this very thread, and it was even addressed to you:

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...70#post3898770

Amaleq13

I am noting that there is apparently no evidence that it has ever been used, in "mystical" writings or "non-mystical" writings, to mean what you would like Paul to have meant and concluding that you actually have no evidence to support your preferred reading.

spamandham

I think I'm not. An example of an almost purely mystical writing would be Revelation (and according to some, the Gospels as well, though I'm not convinced of that). Paul uses some of the same mystical ideas as are found in Revelation, but not to as great a degree.

spamandham

I have not said I have a preferred reading, nor do I. It is not my claim that Paul meant tis expression in anything other than a direct literal interpretation.

I simply find it absurd that even the mere possibility that Paul does not mean something symbolic with the phrase "born of woman, born under the law" is rejected on such specious grounds as what has been presented, and the conclusion is formed that Paul believed Jesus was historical based on this one phrase to the exclusion of everything else Paul says about Jesus existing at the beginning of time, etc.

Rather than answer the simple question "is it possible Paul means something other than what he says", we are getting wrapped around the axle regarding definitoins of the word 'mystical', and off chasing rabbits down Josephus holes.

No concensus is possible. Let's move on.

spamandham

It is my understanding, that the term was often used to indicate a fellow believer, much like it is still used that way today. I can't provide any evidence of that, but neither do I have reason to doubt it. In the context used, it appears to mean that rather than a blood relative, although it might refer to a blood relative.