Is 'called Christ' in Ant 20:200 a Christian gloss just as 'born by woman' is a Catholic gloss in Gal 4:4?

[Giuseppe]

It would be interesting to know the answer by the people who already consider 'called Christ' in 20:200 a Christian interpolation.

Afterall, just as 'called Christ' breaks the context (the brother of Jesus ben Damneus being the victim of Ananus), a similar breaking of the context is in action in Galatians 4:4: the argument is the Son being sent by god in the predicted time, and the 'birth from woman' is not a detail of interest related to the eschatological theme.

[MrMacSon]

God sent forth his Son,

..γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

---

.genomenon ek gynaikos, genomenon hypo nomon

---

....coming of a woman,. coming under [the] law

It might not be eschatological, but it's certainly thematic of Judaism of the time

[GakuseiDon]

Afterall, just as 'called Christ' breaks the context (the brother of Jesus ben Damneus being the victim of Ananus), a similar breaking of the context is in action in Galatians 4:4: the argument is the Son being sent by god in the predicted time, and the 'birth from woman' is not a detail of interest related to the eschatological theme.

It seems to be part of a chiasmic structure, showing that Christians are heirs of God rather than servants. Christ is a son via a woman, while Christians are sons via adoption:

4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
But when the fullness of the time was come,

A. God sent forth his Son,
B. made of a woman,
C. made under the law,
C. To redeem them that were under the law,
B. that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons,
A. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

So if "made of a woman" is an interpolation, then other parts of the structure would probably need to be removed.

[Peter Kirby]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Secret Alias]

ACBA

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms ... 3&dpr=2.81

Reads better.

[Secret Alias]

Don't see any broad mentioned:

But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son"138 ----the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times.139 "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested";140 "and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh"141 as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only)142 to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. [3] But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law,"143 in other words, to "make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says144 ----in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,"145 and "that we might receive the adoption of sons,"146 that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons

Above all reads better. Here's the cocksucker who invented our scripture:

And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption; "(4) plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation;(5) the Son of God being made the Son Of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,--humanity(6) sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God. Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets.

[Giuseppe]

Christ is a son via a woman, while Christians are sons via adoption:

Also I am son of a woman, and baptized at the birth. Where is the contrast between me and the Son? It would be there if Jesus is the pre-existent Son of god, without no woman as mother.

[JarekS]

Ant is one of many literary sources for evangelists. Ant 20:200 may be original.
Paul's letters were edited, interpolated, and supplemented with texts by other authors before they were made public. The entire narrative and historicity layer was invented

[GakuseiDon]

Christ is a son via a woman, while Christians are sons via adoption:

Also I am son of a woman

If that were true, surely you would have given the name of the woman. Who uses "son of a woman" to describe someone?

and baptized at the birth.

If that were true, surely you would have supplied the location and year, if you knew it.

Where is the contrast between me and the Son? It would be there if Jesus is the pre-existent Son of god, without no woman as mother.

According to Paul, Jesus became Son of God at the resurrection. Christians can inherit the mantle via adoption. That would be true whether Jesus was pre-existent or not.

[Peter Kirby]

According to Paul, Jesus became Son of God at the resurrection. Christians can inherit the mantle via adoption. That would be true whether Jesus was pre-existent or not.

I kinda don't get it. Hanging around at creation but not the Son?