I tried to read through the entire post, but it is seven pages, and I might have missed something, or I might be repeating something. I apologize in advance.
The Pauline Paradox
When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.
Did Paul teach this though? King David was called a son of G-d. Others were referred to as brothers and sister in Christ, and that could imply being son and daughter of G-d. I don't recall Paul ever stating that Jesus was the Son of G-d or that he was the Messiah though. At least not in anyway that would make him different than other sons and daughters of G-d. So I think there is a problem here to begin with.
You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (
Luke 1:5,
36)
Paul didn't write Luke though, nor does he refer to a virgin birth. For Paul, he outright states that Jesus was a descendant of David. No genealogy is needed for him, and no miraculous birth.
Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.
That logic doesn't really work. We can ignore the idea that Jesus was G-d, as he never really said that. Later writers may have implied such, but Jesus wouldn't have said such. Even the virgin birth stories, and the like, imply at most that he may be an incarnation of G-d.
Also, who says that G-d couldn't be subject to human genealogies? If G-d in fact became human, and was born of a woman, it would stand that G-d could in fact be subject to human genealogies, in the same way that G-d could be subject to a human birth.
Plus, the Messiah requirements aren't hard and fast. There is a lot of wiggle room.
On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.
Not really. You're placing some unneeded stipulations on G-d. We can drop the whole virgin birth story, and be fine theologically. In fact, I reject the virgin birth story as it doesn't pass the historical method. So lets ignore it.
We can look at Jesus being the descendant (biologically) of David (Paul never mentions Joseph, or any father, so we can't assume he was aware of such). Jesus could still be a son of G-d, such as in the adoptive sense, and the Trinity would be fine. Or, we can dismiss the idea of Jesus being the/a son of G-d, and go a different route.
In John, the author speaks of Jesus being the Logos. A great source for information on the Logos goes back to Philo of Alexandria. Basically what we get is a facet of G-d. A facet that was born to human kind. It would be in much the same way that Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu, was born.
So there are ways around it. Even Paul, who seems to be unaware of a virgin birth, uses terminology that refers to the spirit of G-d, when talking about Jesus, or Christ. For Paul, the transformation seems to happen after the crucifixion, after the resurrection.
That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (
Hosea 4:6)
No paradox though. There is only a paradox if one convolutes all of the sources, without taking them separately. There is no need for a paradox, especially if one looks at it from a different theological point of view.
Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.
Good luck!
So, to sum up, we can bypass the entire paradox by looking at just what Paul has to say about Jesus. He seems to be completely unaware of a virgin birth, and instead states simply that Jesus was a descendant of David, born of a woman. No miracle there. Paul also doesn't appear to call Jesus the Messiah or Son of G-d, but instead does differentiate between an earthly Jesus, and the transformed Christ. The latter he applies terminology in regards to the Spirit of G-d to Jesus. Which bypasses the idea of being a son of G-d, and allows the whole Trinity idea to stand just fine.
I am going to ask the question again, as it seems no one noticed it.
Did Paul actually preach the virgin birth? Are there any indications in any of his letters that Paul believed that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born?
No. Paul seems completely unaware of the idea. So do Mark and John, as well as most of the early Christian writers. Paul instead, when speaking of the birth of Jesus, states simply that he was born of a woman, a descendant of David. For Paul, it seems like the birth hardly matters at all.
I agree with you that to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, one must make use of faith because, literally, it seems impossible. Besides, we are not sure of any thing about Jesus in the NT because the whole book was not written by Jews
but by Hellenist former disciples of Paul. Jesus, if you check History without Christian preconceived notions, never even dreamed that the NT would ever be written.
Jesus can definitely be the Christian Messiah, as Christians have redefined what the Messiah is for them. He is not the Jewish Messiah (as an interesting note, the idea of the Messiah, within Jewish circles, has also evolved and changed).
As for the writing of the NT. Paul was a Jew. He was a Pharisee who never gave up the faith. Matthew was probably a Jew, or at least influenced by such ideas. Definitely not a follower of Paul though. Luke may have been a disciple of Paul, but was Hellenistic no doubt. As for Mark, we know very little, but not a disciple of Paul, neither was the author of John.
It also has to be remembered that one could be a Hellenistic Jew, so the two don't need to be opposed.
St. Paul created no paradox but rather explained Christ's teachings in more detail. You have just failed to properly understand what Paul wrote.
Paul disagrees with Jesus in cases. So not really explained the teachings of Jesus, but added to, contradicted, changed, or taught his own ideas.
Really! Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law down to the letter and to teach us to do the same until heaven and earth passed away. (Mat. 5:17-19) What did Paul do to teach Jesus' teaching in more detail? He said that Jesus was the end of the Law. (Romans 10:4; Ephesians 2:15) Is that what you mean by details? I see rather as Paul contradicting Jesus as if he did not know what he was talking about.
Jesus was only talking to Jews. His audience, his message, his background, was all Jewish.
Paul was largely talking to non-Jews, to Gentiles. Not being Jews, they did not have to follow the Law. Not a contradiction, but two different audiences.
