Personally Collected Miracle Accounts

So I decided that it would be neat if I asked a bunch of brothers and sisters from the Christian Apologetics Alliance if they could relate times they had personally experienced miracles. I will leave the reader to be the judge of whether they are. I personally believe that whether God acts in accord with His natural operations (what most people would call "natural cause"), or if He acts redemptively (what most would call "supernatural/divine intervention"...I don't use those words because I think it implies deism...but more on that in another post), all things are sovereignly governed by God. So here are the accounts I collected-many of whom are eyewitnesses to these things :)

1.) "My son was in the passenger seat of his dad's truck when they were in an accident. The dents in the truck went from the front end of the passenger side to the rear end of the passenger side...but skipped my son's door."

2.)
" I had kidney failure and a rare blood disease (Henoch-Schonlein Purpura) when I was 5 years old. The doctors told my parents that I would not survive. Miraculously, all the pain, symptoms, purpura, went away in a matter of just a couple days; all my bodily functions were restored to normal; white blood cell count increased; immune system functioned properly again... It was said to be nothing short of a miracle by the doctors, and I think I believe it was..."

3.) "Jesus saved me. That is a bigger and greater miracle that anything temporary that will happen on this Earth."

4.) " I have often thought when something happens like a "miracle" in my life... wow after all God has already done for me... the worm that I am... He is still personally involved in my life in so many ways..... there is NO GOD like the ONE TRUE GOD"

5.) "After a group prayed...myself included...I witnessed a mother who had her optic nerve severed after playing ball with her children, regain sight. In fact, the husband stated that she ended up seeing better after the event than she did before it occurred."

6.) "Around 4 months ago 3 friends prayed for me in the car. After 3min of praying i start feeling a sensation of something really clean and holy entering my body. It feels as if im breathing a pure oxygen i never knew existed. My friends noticed how my breathing changed. After seconds my hands were filling sticky, as if they were sleeping but in a really good way. My hands automatically turned into the prayer position by my chest and as i looked at them, i asked myself "noooo waaay! Whats happening?!" The sensation got more and more intense and in the end i was looking straight up the roof of the car as if i were staring at God himself... it was one of the most euphoric happy holy awesome exoerienece i ever lived. It lasted for around 10 minutes. All the windows were fogged aswell because of my breathing and i was wondering "what did just happen?!" While knowkng the answer. It felt like this holy pressence cleaned my dirty sinful soul through holy water and i felt cleansed and euphoric. I understood why sin is bad and how God is good. After the prayer we talked about it and i had alot of energy and was really euphoric in ecstasy of what id call "filled with the holy spirit". I went home jumping on the side stones cause i was full of energy. I came home and told my dad. He also noticed on my face something extraordinary happened because of how happy i was. It was awesome. They were 3 ppl who prayed for me. The next day i continue reading Matthew, and coincidently, a verse struck me "wherever there are two or three gathered in my name. Therei will be among them"
Moral of the story; never underestimate the power of prayer"

7.) "I haven't had a drink of alcohol in 18 years by the Grace of God"

8.)  "Years ago I was trying to find a Bible for my grandmother. It was Sunday and all the Christian book stores were closed. I was guided in a part of town I had never been in to a secular book store that had perfect Bible for her. I also have 12 years parole from the prison of alcoholism, by order of the King."

9.) "As a new Christian, went to bed with a cancerous inoperable tumor on temple. Woke up without it. God is marvelous!"

10.) "My mom didn't get married to my dad until she was about 37 years old. By that time, she already had severe endometriosis. She had me about 2 years later. A long time after, when she finally had a hysterectomy in order to prevent uterine cancer, the doctor said that, based on what her uterus looked like when it came out, having a child should have been a physical impossibility since her early 30s. This came after my grandfather (my dad's stepdad) confided in her privately that he thought I was special and wished he could be around to see what God had in store for me. He died in a hit-and-run not long after that. Honestly, re-remembering all this gives me the heebie-jeebies sometimes 

11.) "n 2004 I was diagnosed with an enlarged aorta. The cardiologist told me I had the same problem that killed John Ritter. I was on my way to the Utah-Idaho SBC meeting when I saw my cardiologist, so I continued on to the meeting after getting the news. I had a followup appt. set a week later. They prayed for me at the meeting and at the three churches that I pastored at the time. When I went for my followup test my aorta was normal. The doctors assumed that there was a problem with the first test, I call it a miracle."

12.) " had my neck healed on the spot when a friend prayed over it (warming sensation then I felt great). A mans hand that was crushed by a car was restored on the spot outside the rescue mission in OKC. My eye was healed of a corneal ulcer in a matter of hours after prayer 

even though the doc was convinced I'd lose my sight in that eye. 
I would consider a woman understanding me in her own language not as tongues, but a miracle of hearing that she was given to hear the gospel and me praying over her. 
Also, a demonized man was barred from entering a fenced in area where Scripture was being read day and night (Genesis to Revelation). It was as though he smacked his head on a brick wall. When he was allowed to enter, the demon left and he was in his right mind.
There's more, but these are a few that stick out off the top of my head."

13.) " I was instantly healed of smoking cigs through prayer. No side affects, no desire. Done. Completely gone. I should add I had smoked at least two packs a day for 17 years."

14.) Every single christian has experienced atleast 1 miracle.

15.) Our little girl was sick and coughing alot for a few days. We decided to keep her in between us in bed one night. We put down a towel for her just in case she threw up. During that night and into the morning should would cough. Around 3:00 am I asked God to send a ministering angel (Heb 1:14) to come and minister healing to her. At around 3:30 am, my wife and I heard the sound of water in the room and someone putting something in the water and moving it around. The sound left and the room became peaceful and we went back to sleep. Little girl didn't cough anymore. Around 6:00 am, she was up and running around playing like she had never been sick. Her towel was wet with water but she was dry. Then the Lord had brought a verse to my mind, John 5:4, 

"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

----

One night around 9:00 pm I was at my computer desk. The Holy Spirit had came over me and I knew immediately what I had to do. I had to go to work and sit in my bosses chair to wait for a phone call. Before we leave work at 5:00 pm, we transfer line 1 to the answering service. I was there waiting for a phone call and it came in on line one and the answering service didn't answer it. I picked it up and stated my company name and and my name and a little old lady asked if this was the mowing company. I told her no, but I said that I will come and mow your yard tomorrow after work. She had dialed the wrong number to my work instead of the mowing company. After work the next day, I went and mowed her yard and it was pouring down rain but I was the happiest man on earth because I was smack dab in the middle of God's will. Then a song had came to my mind, "It's beginning to rain, hear the voice of the Father. Saying whosoever will, come drink of this water. I will pour my spirit out on my sons and my daughters. If you're thirsty and dry look up to the sky, it's beginning to rain".

----

When I was in Army in Germany back in the early 90's, I was doing CQ duty. In the morning one of the Sergeants came in with bite marks on his arm. I asked him what happened and he said "My wife goes into a fit of rage and attacks me and her eyes turn red." Well, I knew what that was. She had evil spirits in her. So I asked him if he could talk to his wife and come to our church for deliverance. He asked her and she said yes. That Sunday after church, we started praying for her and she began to manifest. She was cussing, spitting and writhing around on the floor. We commanded the demons to tell us how they got into her in Jesus Name and one of the demons stated 'through depression'. Then it started complaining about Matthew and Mark and how it was cast out by them also. She was set free. Times of refreshing had came to them.

There are alot of other stories I have and I give God the glory for His help.

16.) " I had epilepsy as a teen that was making me really struggle with my faith. Then I recall healing with it going dormant in a few months. I didn't know it at the time but I later learned my mom had the whole church praying for me."

17.)  I was healed instantaneously of chronic bronchitis through prayer; another event here:http://www.thinkingchristian.net/.../E20061216.../index.html

I asked this one: instantly? He replied:

Instantly. And enduringly. I'd had that problem for years. It didn't come back.

18.) I'm alive - and not just a life form, but a multi-cellular, complex life form in the universe, a life form whose odds of existence are statistically essentially zero.

19.) Three different doctors from different agencies agreed the tumor in my leg was cancer; I still have the X-rays & reports but when they cut out the tumor, it wasn't a carcinoma. It was an angioma. Then in checking my lower torso to see if the cancer had spread from my leg, they accidentally scanned my lung where they found a mass on my lung that was Stage two cancer. The doctors said because I was asymptomatic (showing no symptoms whatsoever) it would have killed me

20.) I've experienced demonic supernatural events. Which isn't at all the same I guess but prayer plays a big role in most of the stories I have on the subject

21.) My mom and dad couldn't have children. 

My grandmother was told by the doctors that her daughter (my aunt) wouldn't live to see the end of the month. She's turning 65 in 4 days.

Prayer played a big part in both these events which I think required divine intervention.

22.) "My dad had terminal cancer most his life. It started about 17 years ago. Since my dad was 16 he was a militant Atheist. "Science will prove everything". He got cancer when he was 33 i believe. About a year later the doctors came to him and said he had to get surgery to take the rumor out of his neck. Since the rumor was attached to his spinal cord, the surgery was either gojng to kill him or paralyze him from the neck down. After my dad was told this, a couple nights before his surgery he prayed to God( he didn't believe in him, so he started it with sonething like "if there is a God), and he asked him to live long enough to see his kids go through college(in my case the military :D) and God shrank the tumor two nights later overnight. Me and my sister have the MRI'S and doctors testimony prove this physically impossible task. The Lord took my dad last April, but He was a walking miracle that brought many people to Christ."

23.) "When my youngest was born, she was put in the nursery on her back three hours before a physical exam. The doctor realized she had a cleft palate, a small chin, and tongue set too far back. This meant that when they bagan monitering, they could not stop the tongue from rolling back and blocking the airway for more than 2 and a quarter minutes. After this, she required surgery, and was never left on her back, yet somehow she survived. This got my attention, and I was converted 6 weeks later."

24.) "Science, or at least a few scientists, said that my wife wouldn't conceive. God said otherwise. My son turns 4 in March."

25.) " I have witnessed several miracles, but the one that comes to mind happened in Russia. I was there with Athletes in Action to teach American football to Russian kids while also sharing Jesus. Playing basketball with some of our translators resulted in a pretty severe ankle injury for me. As I hobbled back to my dorm, one of our translators asked permission to pray for my ankle. I consented. Before he finished praying I could walk on my ankle again with no pain at all."

26.) https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeff-howery/a-minor-miracle-a-long-time-ago-in-a-galaxy-20-miles-away/59357189384

I'll also add this video by someone I consider highly reliable (as I consider all of these posters): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SK07TY1uh0

Now, of course, someone will look at these and say "oh those are just dishonest Christian apologists." Okay. Quite honestly, I can't refute that. But I'd also say that the burden of proof is on the one claiming such a thing.

Now many of these look ordinary (i.e "Jesus saved me"). But I judge that one the most extraordinary miracle of all. Really. That Christ would take a dead heart and breathe new life into us is AMAZING. That He would put His Spirit in us and call a rebel like me from death to life is wonderfully, beautifully loving and sweet. This is a God who has infinite power to heal and make new; so come to the infinite ocean of God's everlasting love, drink and be satisfied :) 

Richard Carrier and His Sperm Problems

Richard Carrier is the most prominent proponent of Jesus-mythicism today. Out of all the mythicists, I will say he is the most capable. His ego certainly seems to reflect the fact that he's aware of it. However, his ego is over-inflated. I intend, over the next few weeks, to deconstruct several key arguments made in On the Historicity of Jesus. Deconstructing the whole thing would take an entire response. Here, I want to focus on his usage of the "sperma". He says in his book On the Historicity of Jesus that Paul uses a different word in Romans 1 to describe what is actually going on. Here's how the ESV translates the verse in question: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
(Romans 1:1-3 ESV)" Carrier believes that the word for "descended" should actually be "manufactured", and the word for "descended from David" should actually be "sperm of David. So, Carrier thinks that Paul was saying that the body of Jesus was "Davidic flesh"...i.e created from the sperm of Jesus. Seriously. To understand Carrier's theory, we have to understand his view of how the ancients viewed cosmology. Carrier states that there are three heavens. There is the our air-Earth. There is then the region right below the moon. There is then the firmament-which is kind of a fixed glass dome that surrounds us. So when Jesus was incarnate, he was an incarnate being in the second heaven-right below the moon. His followers received private hallucinations from this divine being.

So, in order to fulfill the prophecy about the Messiah being from David, Paul started to believe that the body of Jesus in the second heaven was created from Davidic flesh...from David's sperm. Hence, Paul's really saying that Jesus was manufactured (ginomai) from (ek-out of, denoting origin) the sperm (sperma) of David. So what can we say in response? Carrier is a looney.

Ginomai

First of all, let's examine the word "ginomai". Carrier makes a big deal of this because, in Galatians 4, Paul uses gennao to denote birth (the son of the slave as born according to the flesh), but ginomai to denote Jesus's birth. Hence, Carrier thinks that since Paul normally uses gennao to describe when someone was humanly born, and ginomai to describe manufacturing, Paul's not saying Jesus was born from the seed of David. There's just one tiny teeny problem with his argument. Paul NEVER uses "ginomai" to mean "manufactured". The closest Paul comes to that is "become" (i.e 2 Cor 5:21-He made Him who knew no sin to be sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God). Carrier claims this kind of usage is normative. 

So let's survey how Paul uses the term otherwise, shall we? (the underlined portions will show where the term ginomai is being used)

Romans 11:25-"hardening [over Israel] has happened
1 Corinthians 10:6 "Now these things happened as examples for us"

1 Corinthians 10:32: Give no offense

1 Corinthians 14:26 "Let all things be done for edifaction
2 Corinthians 1:8 "...our affliction which came to us in Asia"

2 Cor 3:7 "...ministry of death...came..."

2 Corinthians 5:17 "If anyone is in Christ He is a new creation. The old has passed away, the new has come"

2 Cor 7:14 "has proved

Galatians 3:13-3:14

 Christ became a curse for us so that blessings might come

Galatians 3:17 "....which came 430 years later"

Alrighty. So I think it's clear that Carrier is off his rocker with this term. In John 1, when the author declares that all things were made through the Logos, it uses this term. Hence, the term carries the meanings of arrival, or coming into being. It does not mean "manufactured"-I could not find one instance where Paul uses it like that. Rather, it means "to come into being", or connotes arrival. Literally, the term means "emerge into existence" in these kind of contexts (i.e Rom 11:25, 1 Cor 10:6, 1 Cor 14:26, 2 Cor 3:7, and others), but that's not always the case (as in 2 cor 7:14). However, most of the time it is-especially when it fits the context. Now let's take a look at sperm. 

Sperma

The word sperma (literally, "seed"), when used in connection with a person, ALWAYS references physical lineage...i.e progeny. It ALWAYS talks about descent if it's connected to a person. Throughout the New Testament, it's used 100% of the time to talk about human descent if it's connected to a human. Paul uses it like that in Romans 9:29, Rom 11:1, 2 Cor 11:22, Galatians 3:16, and Galatians 3:29. The author of Hebrews uses it like that in 2:16, 2:11, and 11:18. The Gospels use it like that whenever it portrays the Jews calling themselves "offspring (sperma) of Abraham. So Carrier is just flat out wrong here. What does the verse in context actually mean?

Jesus came into existence (ginomai) from (ek-denoting origin, as in "out of") the offspring of David (i.e the human descendants) according to the flesh. 

According to the Flesh

One more thing before I treat his reading of Galatians 4. That CANNOT mean what Doherty and co. think it does-namely, in the realm of flesh. It means according to Jesus's humanity. Hence, in Romans 9:3, when Paul says that the Israelites are his kinsmen "according to the flesh", that means "according to Paul's humanity". It doesn't mean "in the same sphere of reality"-otherwise, when Paul said that the Israelites are his kinsmen "according to the flesh", that "according to the flesh" bit becomes superfluous. Of COURSE the Israelites were his kinsmen the same sphere of reality. Rather, Paul's emphasizing the point that there are other kinsmen he has-namely, those not according to the flesh but in Christ.

Conclusion

Paul believed Jesus was of human descent from David (Romans 1:3), and was an Israelite (Rom 9:5). And that's because Jesus existed. 

The Sovereignty of God and the freedom of man

I believe that every single molecule-every single event-is governed by my Almighty God. Every single action we ever do or ever will do is predestined by His hand. So how can I reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility? Is man just a puppet in the hand of God? Nope. First, I will briefly set out to establish that this is a Biblical doctrine. Secondly, I'll explain how man can still be considered free. 

"The die is cast in the lot..."

The first text I will focus on is Ephesians 1. 

" In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
(Ephesians 1:11-12 ESV)"

This text seems to me to be clear. Paul says that we (those who have obtained an inheritance-i.e Christians) have been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will. So God's predestination of His elect is rooted in His character as the one who works all things according to the counsel of His will. That means that everything-every tragedy or triumph-is worked in accord with the counsel of God's will. 

"The lot is cast into the lap,

    but its every decision is from the Lord.'

Proverbs 16:33

Why the lot? The author is trying to think of the most random thing he can think of. Yet every decision is from the Lord. So even what seems random to us is sovereignly ordained by God. Lamentations 3:33 says "can a man speak and have it happen unless the Lord has declared it?" 

I could quote other verses, but from these it seems clear that God decrees all events. Does this mean God causally determines all events? While He is the ultimate cause of all things,, He's not the direct and immediate cause of all things. I think these verses show that God has a specific intention for everything that occurs. They don't show that He's the direct-rather, everything has a purpose. So God doesn't simply permit an action to occur-all actions are woven into God's design in the creation of the world. (As I've said, this doesn't mean God is the direct cause of such actions)

Man's freedom

So how is this to be understood within the context of the freedom of man? The Bible understand man to be totally depraved (see my post on "Why I am a Calvinist"). That means that every single one of our desires is bent inward-apart from God's grace, we have no good. Our wills are enslaved to our own desires, and we seek to exalt ourselves in all of our actions. God, therefore, restrains our hearts (by grace-i.e unmerited favor...something He does not have to give) by impressing His law on our hearts (Romans 2), and keeping people from sinning (Genesis 20:6). So this is what this means. 

Man does good only because God actively produces goodness in him. If God were to fully give mankind over to himself, we'd destroy ourselves in our evil. Thus, God, in decreeing evil events, needs only give man over to himself. This isn't like an adult leaving a child with a gun for two reasons. One: the gun is something outside of the kid that enables the kid to do wrong. Sin is something that is a part of the core of our being. It is something that is a part of us. Two, a parent has a moral obligation to his kid as his parent. God has no obligation to us because He is the Sovereign Creator-as the Creator of life, God has total rights over it. Additionally, because man has willingly rejected (from nothing outside of himself-but of his own volition) God in His entirety, God has the right to destroy them. And He doesn't by His good grace alone. 

So the only thing man freely wills in and of himself is sin. Some liken this to being incapacitated-but it's not. If I were to push Stephen Hawking to the floor and then tell him to get up, I'd be irrational to do so. He physically can't. However, suppose some weird dude just LOVES floors! So he hugs it and refuses to get up because he's so in love with floors. No take out "floors" and put in "sin". We have the physical ability-the body parts, the rational faculties-to obey God. However, because our desires are so thoroughly corrupt, the only thing we can do is sin because the only thing we want to do is sin. 

So the goodness that is a part of people, then, is what NT Wright calls "glimmers of God". Humans, although fallen, still shine forth glimmers of who God is in them, because God hasn't inaugurated (in full) the new age yet. He still extends grace to people so that more and more will come to be conformed to His image, and show forth His beauty. And if you think that's egotistical, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SA9hokDLPo

Christian Liberty

The way the regenerate person (the person who is indwelt by the Spirit) lives is slightly different. The regenerate person's old nature has been crucified with Christ. So there's a reversal that takes place. Whereas the good in someone who is outside of Christ are "glimmers of God" in them-but they in and of themselves are given to sin, the good in a Christian is (more and more, day by day) fundamentally who they are. As opposed to the non-Christian, where any good reflected in them is destined to be overcome by their sinful nature in light of eternity, for the Christian the opposite is true. So sin is "glimmers of the old self" in a Christian person that needs to be (and will be) put to death. The good in a Christian is still the goodness of God being produced in them-but as opposed to the non-regenerate person, God's goodness becomes more and more a fundamental part of who the Christian is. However, this gives the Christian ZERO grounds for boasting in him or herself. Any good we have still comes from God, only the result of the Spirit bringing about conformity to Christ in us. If God hadn't definitively regenerated our wills and caused us to cast ourselves onto Him, we'd be utterly lost. It is all grace. 

"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me

I once was lost, but now am found

Was blind but now I see" 

-John Newton

An Idealistic Understanding of the Incarnation

The incarnation is baffling for any human mind. How can the infinite become finite? Well, let us define our terms (see the "Mind-Model" of the Trinity before proceeding). The standard view of the incarnation demands that Jesus, in His one Person, had two complete and distinct natures. These two natures (divine and human), while they do not mix, are perfectly joined. Jesus is a hypostasis-a distinct property bearer-who bears both the the properties of being Divine and human. That means, in His Divine nature, the Son of God is everything that makes God God. He is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. In His human nature, He is everything that makes a human human. These two natures, again, do not mix, but nevertheless are united in the Son of God-the Logos. So how are we to understand this? I don't think I can fully resolve the issue. But I'll try to make it as intelligible as possible. Let's define terms.

Consciousness
Consciousness is the fact of experience, as Sam Harris puts it. It is the fact of perception, of feeling, of color, of knowledge. It is the world we inhabit (see my post "How Consciousness proves the existence of God"). On idealism, consciousness is all that exists (again, see the blog post just mentioned). Consciousness is the system of thoughts, experiences, knowledge, etc that characterize reality.

Personhood
Personhood is the concept of "self" or "ego". It is my "I". It is me; I am a person. Personhood, therefore, can be described as a localization of consciousness. It is the fact that I exist and therefore I am experiencing stuff. Consciousness is an essential part of what it means to be a person. A rock does not possess consciousness, and therefore is not personal. Animals can be said to be personal because they possess (presumably) consciousness. Possessing consciousness-having a system of thoughts and experiences-is an essential part of being a Person. In fact, I'd say Personhood is identical to localized consciousness (again, the fact of the existence of the "self"). It is a distinct center of awareness.

Mind (what I'd also call the Soul) 
Then what is the Mind? I used to define this as one's own consciousness...and therefore, Personhood. But then I realized Jesus has both a human mind and a divine mind. Yet Jesus is not two persons in one Person; He is ONE Person with two natures. Yet He has a human mind. How is this to be understood?

I now suggest that the mind is a center of understanding within localized consciousness. That sounds confusing. A lot of big words. Here's what I mean by that. The mind is the means through which I experience the world. Whereas Personhood is localized consciousness, the mind is what localized consciousness does. Consider this. 

Personhood = italics
Mind = bold

I feel pain. Mind, as a friend of mine helpfully put it, is the self's perception of both itself and the world-the self's relationship to both itself, and the world. Whereas Personhood is the self, the mind is the instrument the self uses to perceive. Thus, it is proper to say that I have a soul, rather than to say I am a soul. So the mind, as the center of understanding within my localized consciousness, is the self's self-awareness. It is the way the self views itself and it's relationship to the world. As I said, having at least one mind is an essential part of Personhood. 

Bipolarism
This is going to be a helpful ANALOGY ONLY to clarify my definition of the mind. I do not want to suggest that the Person of the Son is bipolar. Rather, this can help us understand something about the nature of the mind. I was talking with a very insightful friend at church about this, and she brought up the fact of Multiple Personality Disorder. It's when a singular "self" experiences multiple modes of the self-and yet these modes can sometimes be totally disconnected from one another. What I mean by mode here is: a way of viewing itself. In spite of having multiple personalities, my friend reminded me that there is still only one Person experiencing all of these. There is only one self, yet that self has something like multiple minds (I realize this isn't a perfect analogy, again) that are disconnected from each other. In other words, the mind is the way the self views itself and its relationship to the world. Perhaps that's more precise wording on what exactly I mean by "center of understanding".

The Divine and Human Person
Unlike a bipolar person, the Son's Divine and Human natures are completely united, yet nevertheless distinct. So within the Son's "ego", the Son's sense of "I", He can have two ways of viewing Himself and His relationship to the world, and hence two minds. This is unique to the Son. The Son possesses two minds, whereas the other Persons possess only one mind. While this is mind (hehe) bending, it is not logically incoherent. It may be incomprehensible to our minds, because we only possess a singular mind. Yet within the Son's self, He possesses to ways of viewing Himself and His relationship to all things (i.e two minds). He possess a divine mind, and a human mind. So His one Person possesses two minds.

The Trinity-Cosmic Consciousness, the Universal Mind
Mind with a capital "M" is not the same as mind as I have thus far described it. On idealism, all is mind. Reality is fundamentally mental. Thus, I would define the being of God as Cosmic Consciousness. In other words, God's Being is Consciousness. He is a system of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. Red flags may go off because I have just called God a "system". No worries, He's not an impersonal system, because consciousness is inherently personal ;) 

I'll refer to the Divine Being as the Divine Consciousness from this point on. I STRONGLY recommend you look at my mind-model of the Trinity, as this serves as an edit to it. Replace "center of consciousness" with "localization of consciousness" and I think we should be good. 

Within the Divine Consciousness, there are three distinct localizations of consciousness: Father, Son, and Spirit. To put it in terms of the creeds, there are three personal hypostasis. A hypostasis is just a distinct property bearer. Or in simpler terms, it's a thing with properties. So what this means is that while the Persons of God never operate independently from each other, and while the Father is the source of the Godhead, the properties that make God who He is (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence) are still distinctly possessed by each Person. So in the Divine Consciousness, there are three hypostasis...we can pretty much use this word interchangeably with "Person" insofar as we are applying it to personal agents. Which we are. Note: I am using the word "distinct" rather than "individual" for a reason. The word "individual" seems to imply a separate existence for each Person. But Scripture testifies wholly against that; God is one. We are not tri-theists. I mean that each Person, while inter-dependent, nevertheless each possess the attributes of God. 

Here's the key thing to remember. These Persons are not "parts" of God. Each Person is fully God. That means, on the idealist view of reality, two things. 
1.) Everything that makes God who He is is possessed by each Person
2.) Each Person shares and operates in the Divine Consciousness fully. So while these localizations of consciousness are distinct centers of information processing in the Divine Consciousness (the Divine Mind, we could say...but I won't for the sake of avoiding confusion), they nevertheless think and operate in perfect unity and accord. The thoughts of all Persons in the Godhead are fully known, and fully comprehended. 

Concluding Thoughts
So this is my model. To most people, this probably looks like silly speculation. It's not if my God exists. It's also matters a ton in how we present the incarnation to the world. We are not to present God as a logically incoherent entity-that dishonors Him. We are to present Him as faithfully as possible. 

I will call my model the "Idealist Incarnation" model. I want to mention one last thing. It is helpful to note that all of reality exists as a projection of the Divine Consciousness. Thus, at least in theory, it's not impossible for Him to unite a human nature to Himself. The common property shared between God and man is consciousness. 

Response to Earl Doherty on Galatians 4

Mythicists are an interesting group. Here, I'm going to critique Earl Doherty's eisegesis of Galatians 4. Here goes. 

"The sending of the Son"

“God sent [the verb exapostellō] his Son.” This verb of sending is used in the Old Testament in connection with the sending of spiritual beings, such as angels, or personified Wisdom as in the Wisdom of Solomon 9:10. The basic form of the verb, apostellō, is regularly used to denote the sending of the Holy Spirit. (The verb and its variants can also be used to speak of ‘sending’ a person.) The identical form of the verb in verse 4, “God sent his Son,” is used in verse 6 to say that “God sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son.” This is an aorist tense, placing both these actions in the past.Some translations of the verb in verse 6 render it in the perfect tense: “God has sent into our hearts…” but this is misleading. The question is, are the two thoughts, the two “sent” actions, more or less contemporary? Might they essentially be complementary parts of the same process? By using a perfect tense in verse 6, translators set up a “God sent…God has sent,” sequence, as though the second is completely separate and later than the first, the former representing the advent of Jesus and his life on earth, the latter the installation of his Spirit into Paul’s converts a generation after his passing. And no doubt such a translation has been influenced by that assumption. But if the two ‘sendings’ are essentially contemporary, Paul would be relating both to the time of his own activities: the sending in both cases would then relate only to the Spirit of the Son, so that we could take both in the context of the revelation of Christ by God to Paul and his congregations—as including the wider circles of contemporary Christ belief."

Doherty tries to imply that the language used by Paul ("God sent His Son...God sent the Spirit of His Son") implies that they were sent at the same time. Why? Because both are written in the aortist tense. In other words, since they have the same tense, they must have the same time. This, however, is false. Being in the past tense simply necessitate that both have happened in the past. So onto the question: are the two sendings contemporary? What Doherty means by that is that the sending of the Son is temporally co-extensive to the sending of the Spirit. In other words, since the transition of the people from the law to release from the law happens at faith, and Jesus's coming represents the time when the faith was revealed and represents release from the law, and believers are only released from the law when they believe, therefore Jesus's coming must be their spiritual acceptance of Him, not His physical coming. Let explain.

In Galatians 3, you have Paul saying this: " Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:23-26 ESV)"

So, according to Doherty, Paul believes that the transition from law to freedom happens when you have faith. Therefore, when Paul says "before faith came, we were held...until the coming faith would be revealed", he means that people were held captive until faith was revealed through Paul's gospel, since the only time they could actually have faith was when Paul's gospel was revealed. The key here is that Doherty views the "coming of faith" NOT as the advent of the historical Jesus, but rather as the advent of faith in the believer's heart. So the "coming of faith" refers to the coming of faith to the believer through Paul's preaching, not to Jesus's work. This is revealing  for why: 

"The intervening verse 24 has been rendered in translations in either of two ways: “…the Law was our tutor until Christ came,” but this contradicts the thought in the two flanking verses which say that it is “faith” that has come. The other is preferable: “…the Law was a tutor leading us to Christ,” which is literally what the Greek says (gegonen eis Xriston). The latter could be taken in any number of ways: leading us to learning about Christ, leading us to the time when Christ arrived—either in body, spirit, or the revelation of him. The King James Version, for example, translates: “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”"

So what is Doherty saying? Since the coming of faith isn't the advent of Jesus, it makes no sense to say that the Law was our tutor until Christ came. Paul said it was our tutor until faith came. Therefore, this cannot be. 

"If God sending his Son in verse 4 is focused on the act—God’s act—of producing that transition from Law to freedom, and Paul locates this transition at the time of faith (which is to say of the response to his own and other apostles’ preaching), then the “sent” of verse 4 does not refer to any arrival of the Son on the earthly scene some decades earlier. Rather, the sending of verse 4 is the sending of the Son during the time of Paul, which can only mean through revelation into minds like his (“God revealed his son in me,” as he has said in 1:16), enabling him to bring knowledge of the Son to others (“in order that I might preach him among the nations”) and produce the “faith” within them which brings about that freedom from the Law and confers the status of “sons” upon them.^2"

The trouble is that Doherty fails to realize what practically all commentators have: the two are identical. The coming of faith is not the coming of faith in the believer's heart through Paul's gospel. The thought makes perfect sense if Paul views the coming of the faith as the advent of Christ. The two are identical in Paul's mind. The "coming faith" was revealed when Christ came. Why? because Christ's coming was the time when faith came as the means by which you were justified. Thus faith arrived (i.e was explicitly revealed-it's not like God changed His game plan) as the means through which you inherit God's promises, not in people's hearts (yet). Whenever Paul talks about a believer receiving Paul's Gospel, he always talks about it in terms of means. In other words, faith is seen as having an object (faith in Christ). Verse 25 is is telling: " But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:25-26 ESV)"

Paul is distinguishing the period where "faith has come" from "you are all sons of God through faith". How do I know this? If, in Paul's mind, the fact that "faith has come" represented the advent of faith in the believer's heart, Paul wouldn't have needed to reiterate that you "are all sons of God through faith". That point was already made; it would just be repetitive. It would be like saying "But now through faith, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ you are all sons of God through faith." 

So how does it make sense for Paul to identify "the coming of faith" with "the coming of Christ"? For Paul, the coming of Jesus is the coming of faith, because Jesus's work itself marked the transition from "law" to "faith". In other works, Jesus's work marks the arrival of faith as the means of justification. Here's another (even more decisive) exegetical point in my favor: So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24 ESV)

Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith. In other words, Christ's coming enables justification by faith. It cannot be identical to it-other wise Paul wouldn't have used a hina clause (an "in order that" clause, were the stuff after the "in order that" expresses purpose). 

Let's take a look at at his argument in Galatians 4, because this is where it really matters in terms of a historical Jesus.

"If we allow the thought of 3:23-25 to govern 4:4 (which it should, else Paul is contradicting himself), we arrive at this scenario. If God sending his Son in verse 4 is focused on the act—God’s act—of producing that transition from Law to freedom, and Paul locates this transition at the time of faith (which is to say of the response to his own and other apostles’ preaching), then the “sent” of verse 4 does not refer to any arrival of the Son on the earthly scene some decades earlier. Rather, the sending of verse 4 is the sending of the Son during the time of Paul, which can only mean through revelation into minds like his (“God revealed his son in me,” as he has said in 1:16), enabling him to bring knowledge of the Son to others (“in order that I might preach him among the nations”) and produce the “faith” within them which brings about that freedom from the Law and confers the status of “sons” upon them.^2"

So here's the logic:

1.) God sending His Son is God's act of producing the transition of the law to freedom in verse 4

2.) The transition is faith in Paul's gospel

3.) Conclusion: God sending His Son is when God produces faith in you (i.e reveals Christ so that you can spread the Gospel like Paul) through Paul's Gospel

In other words, God's act of "sending the Son" is at the time of faith. It's an ingenious argument, to be sure. The only problem is that it's completely wrong.

 " But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

(Galatians 4:4-5 ESV)"

Two things. For one, even if we take Doherty's view of "faith coming" has the birth of faith in the believer's heart, that STILL doesn't support his view of Galatians 4. Paul wouldn't be contradicting himself-that makes no sense to say that he would. If the sending of the Son is focused on God's act of sending the Son into the world as a necessary prerequisite to redeeming people, then it can easily be said that God sent His Son into the world to redeem people under the law.

Secondly, a hina clause is used here. That's a problem for Doherty's view. God "sent forth his Son...to (i.e in order to) redeem those who were under the law, so that (another hina clause) we might receive adoption as sons. If, in Paul's mind, God "sending forth his Son" was God's action of revealing Christ in the minds of those who were hearing Paul's Gospel (i.e transitioning people from the law to freedom...which is what redemption from the law is), then why would he say that the purpose of sending Christ was to redeem those under the law? Paul didn't identify redemption of those under the law with sending His Son-rather, it's God's goal in sending His Son. In other words, God sending the Son isn't identical to redemption from the law (i.e transitioning from law to freedom by revealing Christ in people's minds); rather, God's act of sending the Son enables the transition. So in Paul's mind, "redemption under the law" is achieved by the sending of the Son, but is not entailed by it. If (as Doherty agrees) the action of redeeming those who were under the law focuses on God, then it makes perfect sense to say God sent Christ in order for God to redeem those under the law. In His mind, sending Christ is a prerequisite for His action to redeem those under the law. If the sending of the Son was identical to transitioning someone from the law to freedom, then the phrase "to redeem those who were under the law" is completely superfluous. Paul, therefore, has those acts as distinct from each other; the sending of the Son is a necessary prerequisite to God's act of redeeming those under the law. It would be like me saying "I took the AP Calculus BC test in order to take Calc III."

Doherty's logic requires us to believe that the "coming of the faith" was the revelation of the Son in believers that produced the transition from law to freedom. But that's not what Paul is saying. The two actions are distinct in Paul's mind, with one action achieving the other. They're not identical. If they had been, Paul would have said God "sent forth His Son (i.e revealed him in your hearts to produce the transition from law to freedom) so that we might receive adoption as sons." Unfortunately for mythers, that's not what Paul said.

Nor does Paul explicitly say this in verse 6 of Galatians 4. He doesn't say He sent Christ AS the Spirit. The Spirit and Christ are numerically distinct in Paul (1 Corinthians 12-one God, one Lord, one Spirit). Rather, the Spirit operates in perfect unity with Christ. Paul was a thoroughgoing trinitarian. Richard Baukham has done excellent work demonstrating this. The Spirit's work is never independent of God or Christ. Thus, the Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8), because the Spirit shares the same being with both.

"The “now that faith has come” (3:25) is Paul focusing on himself and his own time. (Referring to a past “faith” that was in response to Jesus’ historical death and resurrection would have been too oblique; any reference to the past would have been to the saving events themselves.)"

This is also problematic. As I've said before, the time when "faith has come" refers to faith as the means of justification. It refers to the time when faith, not the law, is revealed as means through which you are justified-it's not talking about justification itself. Jesus's saving events are entailed in "now that faith has come", because it's His work that makes it possible for "faith" to arrive as the means by which you are counted righteous in God's sight. 

"Even though the epistle of Titus, one of the Pastorals, was written probably half a century later, it still preserves much of Paul’s thought. In its opening verses, the writer, presenting himself as Paul, has this to say:

2  …the hope of eternal life which God, who does not lie, promised
before the beginning of time [pro chronōn aiōniōn],
3  and now at the proper time [kairois idiois] he has revealed his word
[NEB: openly declared himself] through the preaching entrusted to me
[i.e., Paul] by the command of God our Savior.

Thus the “proper time,” an idea equivalent to Galatians’ “fullness of time,” is indeed the time of revelation and preaching by Paul. "

Two totally different contexts. The logic doesn't work. There is no necessary exegetical connection between these verses and the verses in Galatians. Then Doherty tries to argue that "born of woman" and "born under the law" is an interpolation. Keep in mind that not ONE manuscript lack these phrases. But here's his reason for why that is: 

"In what way would being born of woman and born under the Law be items worthy of highlighting as important in this context? It would go without saying that if Jesus had lived on earth and been crucified as a human being on Calvary, then he was “born of woman.” That would hardly contribute anything to the primary act or strengthen it; it would be merely gratuitous and redundant. In fact, since orthodox interpretation of the passage assumes that the sending of verse 4 already means the life of Christ and his saving act of death and resurrection, Paul would have no reason to say that he was “born of woman.” Thus the presence of the phrase provides a justification for suggesting interpolation."

This is bizarre. The phrase "born of woman" is meant to emphasize Jesus's humanity-because according to Paul, Jesus wasn't merely human. By saying God "sent His Son, born of woman" emphasizes His humanity, which is instrumental in God's act of redemption. The sending of Jesus is primarily focused on Him being sent into the world-no one has ever said the sending of Jesus means His life death and resurrection. The phrase "God sent His Son" means that God sent His Son into the world-THAT'S been the orthodox interpretation. Thus, the phrase "born of woman" isn't pointless, but rather describes how God sent Jesus (i.e the manner in which Jesus was sent into the world): born of woman (incarnate human!), born under/subject to the law (i.e as a Jew, since only Jews were subject to the Law). This actually fits well with the flow of Paul's thought. Jesus's incarnation enables redemption from the law. He then tries to argue that being "born under the law" is likely an interpolation too because it has no role in saving us. Galatians 4 is supposed to be about freedom from the law-so in what sense would being born under the law help? Paul specifies that elsewhere: 

"For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:10-14 ESV)

When Paul says "the curse of the law", he's not calling the law a curse. Contra Doherty, he has a positive view of the law (Romans 7-"the laws not a bad thing, it's just that people suck" my translation). Rather, he's saying Christ redeemed us from the law's curse, which applied to everyone (since everyone has failed to keep God's law). Jesus redeems us from the law's curse by becoming it. Jesus being "hanged on a tree" confirms that He is under the curse of God. The only way he could become the law's curse-the only way He himself could take it on Himself and suffer through it-was if He was under it. Otherwise, if the law didn't apply to Jesus, he never would have been able to become the curse. However, if the law applied to Jesus as well, and if Jesus took on the sins of the world, then He was counted as one "who does not abide by all things of the law". He took our penalty.

Much much more can be said on this-specifically on the topic of imputation. Jesus's obedience to the law is credited to our account. But I think the point made above is enough to refute Doherty. 

"But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterize the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he performed his mission.”

For those phrases, Burton is not ruling out the understanding of a temporal relationship to the verb, but he is saying that it is not grammatically necessary. Yet if they can be seen as not qualifying the sending, this further frees the ‘sent’ thought in verse 4 from having to be a reference to the arrival in the world of the incarnated Christ in a human body."

This is shocking to me. Burton says exactly what Doherty doesn't. He's not saying that a temporal relationship to the verb is not necessary. He's saying that "born of woman" and "born under the law" describe Christ Himself. It describes the manner in which Christ was sent under which he "performed his mission". That undercuts Doherty's whole point! It doesn't free verse 4 of a reference to the arrival of Christ. It necessitates it. No heavenly figure was ever "born under the law"-that's nonsense. There's not one example of that in extant Jewish literature. Not one. 

"This is a passage which, despite its context clearly linking the woman and her child with the time of the prophet, was widely regarded as prophetic of the Messiah. If Paul felt compelled to interpret this as a reference to his spiritual Christ, he would not have refrained from stating it (even if he didn’t understand how it could be that the spiritual Christ could be “born of woman”). Perhaps he simply assigned it to the world of myth and God’s “mysteries”—which were unfathomable anyway, and had to be accepted on the basis of scriptural revelation; just as he accepted that the spiritual Christ was of David’s stock because scripture said so. "

Again. Words fail me. When did "born of woman" ever mean something other than "born of woman"? And when does Paul use the phrase "mysteries of God" in reference to anything other than God's salvation achieved in Christ's work? He doesn't. I will address the idea that the "spiritual Christ was of David's stock (sperm)" too. No kidding-these people, Carrier, Price, Doherty-all think that Paul thought God took a sperm of David and created Jesus out of it. 

"As a final consideration on whether Paul was likely to have written “born under the Law,” we ought to examine his attitude about what being under the Law meant to him in the first place. To his way of thinking, it was entirely a negative condition, useless for salvation, an enabler of sin. God needed to free believers from it. “No human being can be justified in the sight of God for having kept the Law: Law brings only the consciousness of sin,” Paul says in Romans 3:20. Would it not have occurred to him, or to his readers, to wonder how Jesus, if he was born under Law, was exempt from this terrible fate? Would not the two statements, Romans 3:20 and Galatians 4:4, constitute something of a contradiction—at the least requiring clarification? The very fact of the inclusion of “born under the Law” in Galatians 4:4 implies that Christ was in fact a subject of the Law and therefore a prey to all its impediment"

So this is the last bit I will be addressing. You can see the flaws yourself for the rest of the article. Doherty says "would it not have occurred to him how if Jesus was born under the law, it would not have exempted Him from this terrible fate?" (i.e being conscious of one's own sin) Doherty makes a similar point in Romans 7-that if the law aroused Paul's sinfulness, why didn't it do it for Jesus if Jesus was truly under the law? This is also bizarre. In Romans 8, Paul explains why: Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh. Sarx, in Romans 8, is a clear reference to human nature (which Paul views as depraved). Mythicists like him try to take this to mean that Jesus was like a human but wasn't. However, that's not at all what Paul is saying. He's not saying that Jesus wasn't human-rather, Jesus wasn't sinful. Thus, Jesus's passions weren't arouses because He wasn't sinful. For Paul, it was "sin in him" producing death. 

" Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

(Romans 7:13-14 ESV)"

The law was good, but sin in Paul produced death. He says "I am of the flesh"-his sinful, corrupt humanity. Thus, because Jesus was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, He didn't have a sinful nature. Thus the law had no such effect on Him. He is the new Adam-and unlike Adam, Jesus obeyed God. 

"Here we have an identical situation to that which I have pointed out in regard to Paul’s concept of “living kata sarka.” If living in the flesh, as Paul so consistently emphasizes, is full of corruption, temptation, sin, contrariness to God, even ‘death’ (figuratively speaking), the question had to arise as to how an historical Jesus who ‘lived in the flesh’ was not a party to all this. "

This is where mythers CONSISTENTLY get the point wrong. Sarx, the vast majority of time Paul uses it, refer to the sinful human nature. Jesus had a human nature, but not a sinful one. He had a soma, but not sarx. Hence, He was sent in the likeness of sarx-He resembled us in that He was human. He was a man (anthropos) according to Romans 5. But He wasn't a sinful man. 

"“But as for you—you may bear the name of Jew; you rely upon the law and are proud [lit., you boast] of your God; you know his will; you are aware of moral distinctions because you receive instruction from the law; you are confident [lit., have convinced yourself] that you are the one to guide the blind, to enlighten the benighted, to train the stupid, and to teach the immature, because in the law you see the very shape of knowledge and truth. You, then, who teach your fellow-man, do you fail to teach yourself? You proclaim, ‘Do not steal’; but are you yourself a thief? You say, ‘Do not commit adultery’; but are you an adulterer? You abominate false gods; but do you rob their shrines? While you take pride in the law, you dishonor God by breaking it. For, as Scripture says, ‘Because of you the name of God is dishonored among the Gentiles’.”

The tone of the whole passage is critical. Paul is almost sneering at those he is addressing, those Jews under the Law. If the spirit of an historical Jesus werestanding at Paul’s side, he would be cringing, waiting for Paul to make the obvious exception for himself. (“Surely he’s not including Me in all that sarcasm about Jews who, having knowledge in the Law and being teachers, do not practice what they preach? Have I dishonored God by breaking the Law? Is he saying that because of Me ‘the name of God is dishonored among the gentiles’? Surely not!”)"

Oh boy. This is the level of exegesis you should expect from mythers and their ranks. Paul is being critical of the Jews not simply because they were under the law, but because they broke the law. He's bashing them not for relying on the law, but for relying on the law while at the same time breaking it. Obviously Paul thinks that Jesus didn't break the law. That goes without saying. 

"There is not a word anywhere from Paul about how Jesus the teacher behaved while being “born under (or subject to) the Law.” Moreover, with Jesus supposedly looming in the background, he could have been brought forward by Paul to illustrate how this particular Jew “instructed in the Law” had shown how to properly behave even in such circumstances and not dishonor the profession and the name of God."

Except there is a word about how Jesus behaved while being subject to the law. "He who knew no sin became sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21

Paul's whole thinking presupposes the fact that Jesus obeyed God perfectly (Romans 5) and was obedient to the point of death (Philippians 2). 

I've yet to see mythicists address the "offspring of Abraham" problem in Galatians 3 as well. My guess is that they will talk about how those who have faith in Christ are referred to as offspring of Abraham. This won't do however. We are called offspring of Abraham in Christ. What's true of Him becomes true of His people ("I have been crucified with Christ...united to Christ in a death like His, etc"). So Jesus's status is conferred on those who believe. The trouble is that the promise to Abraham was this: through you the nations shall be blessed. God proceeds to make the nation of Israel out of Abraham. So the promise, then, involved genealogical descent. Paul says that Jesus is the fulfillment of this promise-the one to whom the promise had been made (that through your offspring-Jesus-the families of the earth would be blessed). So Jesus could only fulfill the promise made to Abraham (through your offspring the nations of the earth will be blessed) if he was Abraham's offspring. Otherwise, if Jesus wasn't descended from Abraham, how is it that Paul can view Jesus as the One who inherits the promise ("through you the nations of the Earth shall be blessed)? How does God bless the nations through Abraham if Jesus wasn't Abraham's descendant? We're not told.

This is why mythicists will forever remain in their own, isolated little camp, demanding to be heard yet being taken seriously by no one. Why? Because of pseudo-scholarship like this.