I’m not sure what relevance any of that has here.

Can you maybe summarize your point?

(Galatians 4: 5) States : ‘God sent forth his Son, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.’

The verse is nicely
propounded in this article.

This is one way of explanation
with the other verses about
Old Testament Law _:
##########

( Ephesians 2: 15) says :
‘ The Old Testament law was
an enmity ‘.

The Old Testament Law
was a curse _:

This is stated in,(Gal.3:10,13)
:’For as many as are of the
works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written “Cursed
is everyone who does not
abide by all things written in
the book of the law, to per
form them.”Christ redeemed
us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for
us, for it is written,“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”.

‘ The Old Testament Law
made nothing perfect.   Hebrews 7 : 19 )

The Old Testament law was
till Jesus. lt is stated in,
(Galatians 4 : 4 ) :’ God sent forth his Son, made
under the law. ‘

.’Jesus also instructed a
healed leper :”Go, show
yourself to the priest & offer
the gift that Moses command ed”. (Matthew 8 : 4)

(Galatians 5 :4) states :’ We can’t try to make ourselves
right with God by keeping the law, if we did we have been
cut off from Christ; fallen
away from God’s grace.’

So, we are now dead to the
Old Testament law, as Jesus Christ fullfilled it. _:
############

(Romans 7 : 4 )states :
‘Wherefore, my brethren, ye
also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that
ye should be married to
another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.’

‘Jesus said, “Think not that I
am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfill .”
(Matthew 5 :17)

Jesus declared the two commandments on which
hang all the law :_
##############

This is stated in,
( Matt. 22 : 35_40 ) :’One of them, asked Jesus, Master, which is the great command ment in the law? Jesus said unto him,” Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart
& with all thy soul,& with all
thy mind. This is the first &
great commandment & the second is like unto it, Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On  these two commandments hang all the law. “And,

About justification by the
works of the Old Testament
law _:
##########

(Galatians 2 :16,19) says:
‘ A person is not justified by
the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. He is
dead to the law, that he
might live unto God.’

( Romans 3 :20 ) confirms it:
‘ Therefore by the deeds of
the law there shall no flesh
be justified in his sight: for
by the law is the knowledge
of sin.’

And,
About judgment by the Old Testament Law :
##############

( Romans 2 : 12) says :’For
as many as have sinned
without law shall also perish without law & as many as
have sinned in the law shall
be judged by the law. ‘

<><><><><><><>


Rogers, Justin M. (2014). “The Philonic and the Pauline: Hagar and Sarah in the Exegesis of Didymus the Blind”. In Runia, David T.; Sterling, Gregory E. (ed.). Studia Philonica Annual. 26. SBL Press. pp. 57–77. ISBN 978-1-62837-019-5. “Philo’s influence on Didymus served as the basis of my doctoral dissertation”

In the early church, there are two primary strands of symbolic interpretation applied to Hagar and Sarah. The first is located initially in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, in which Hagar and Sarah are allegorized as two covenants, the Jewish and the Christian (Gal 4:21–31).
[…]
The second interpretation seems to have been limited to Alexandrian interpreters of the Bible. Philo is the first to understand Hagar as preliminary studies (the ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) and Sarah as virtue (ἀρετή) or wisdom (σοφία). —(p. 57)

It actually does mean he became human. That’s the whole point.

The question is not whether it means that. But how he became human: by actually having a mother (“born”), or being manufactured by god (“made”).

We can’t tell from the data available. Even if Paul thought Jesus became human by being born of a human woman, literally, he is not talking about that here; he is here saying Jesus was born to Hagar as we all are. He is stating it in an allegorical framework. Whether he means that is true because Jesus had a human mother like we did, or because God produced a body of flesh for Jesus in some other way, is not here being stated. So neither can be affirmed from this passage.

I must say that this interpretation strikes me as at least a little bit more plausible than your allegorical reading of that phrase. If I am to adduce some extra evidence for it (besides its simply being a rather plain and straightforward reading) it would be Crook’s point that the obviously allegorical women are not introduced until “twenty verses later”. You brush that off as irrelevant. But surely, you may think, if Paul does not want to confuse his readers, he should not introduce something that is meant to be an allegory at a point in the argument were it is likely to be read literally, as the obviously allegorical women have not yet been introduced. (Now, certainly Paul oftentimes is confusing, which I grant lessens the strength of this point somewhat.)

Actually, no. That’s “Chapter 4.” And is correct. The annotation style I was borrowing leaves off the 1 on first verses of a chapter. But I see this can be confusing when out of context so I have put in a 4:1 to match the rest of the style.

As I explain in my book, I find it’s at best 1 in 3 chance Paul believed his Jesus was crucified by the earthly authorities and that Peter personally knew him and so on. Which isn’t really that low a probability. But it’s lower than 50/50.

But Paul certainly believed Jesus “existed” in the same sense he was certain Satan existed and so on: as celestial beings operating in hidden spheres, which Paul even had conversations with (in his head). That’s true whether Jesus existed or not.

Thank you dr. Carrier for the clarification. But do you mean that Paul DIDN’T believe Jesus actually existed ? Or to put it in better words : ultimately, it didn’t matter to Paul that Jesus did or did not exist ?

“Maybe Paul wanted to counter their beliefs by emphasizing that Jesus, being born from a woman, was human.” There isn’t any reason for him to argue that here though; if it were something he felt he needed to argue, then he would have written a full argument for it. But he doesn’t. So he clearly doesn’t have any awareness of such a challenge needing argument. He just makes this statement in the context of an extended allegory. He does not “use” it in any particular way such as you suggest. And that’s not how ancient rhetoric worked. If Paul meant to use this in the way you suggest, he would have used it that way, as in, it would be part of a whole argument to that effect. But no such argument to that effect appears here.

And no. There is nowhere in Paul’s 20,000 words any attack on any other salvation cult or its concepts. He attacks pagan votive cult, but that’s earthly not celestial. He attacks Christian sects who preach a different Jesus; but he doesn’t specify what they were teaching that differed from him. And he attacks celestial Judaism, as here, but only by calling it demonic, i.e. he is claiming elemental powers control the earthly rituals the Galatians are falling back on. And his only response to it is to turn to a celestial savior.