FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2006, 08:05 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default Ephesians and Doherty's argument

It seems to me that much of Doherty's argument relies on Ephesians, but Ephesians is now widely considered pseudo-Paul. What impact does this have on Doherty's argument?

Quote:
1 Corinthians 2:
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers [archons] of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" — 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?
Quote:
Ephesians 3:
7 Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by the working of his power. 8 Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages by God who created all things; 10 so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him.
Quote:
Ephesians 2:
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler [archon] of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
The passages in Ephesians, if they were real Paul, would seem to seal the argument to me, but if they are not real Paul, then it seems to leave it open to much more debate and and I don't really find anything that strongly shows that Paul was talking about a crucifixion in the heavens or that he was talking about spiritual rulers when he mentioned "rulers of this age".
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 01:18 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
It seems to me that much of Doherty's argument relies on Ephesians, but Ephesians is now widely considered pseudo-Paul. What impact does this have on Doherty's argument?
I don't think it would have any impact on Doherty's argument, since the author of Ephesians, even if not Paul himself, may have been a mythicist along the lines of Paul (assuming that Paul was a mythicist).
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 01:40 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
I don't think it would have any impact on Doherty's argument, since the author of Ephesians, even if not Paul himself, may have been a mythicist along the lines of Paul (assuming that Paul was a mythicist).
Well, but that's the problem, at least part of it. Does this hurt Doherty's case for showing that PAUL was a "mythicist"?

If we can show that the writer of Ephesians was a "mythicist", but that writer isn't Paul, then Christians and just politely set that book aside and move on. They can say, well, looks like the Council missed one, one of the gnostics got through the vetting process. That's bad news for them, it certainly hurts the Bible, but not in the way that showing PAUL never thought Jesus had come to earth.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 03:41 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Also, what about passages like Romans 1:

Quote:
Romans 1:
1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, 6including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
What about this? Doherty doesn't really handle it very well IMO. This is hard to just explain away.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 04:34 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
It seems to me that much of Doherty's argument relies on Ephesians, but Ephesians is now widely considered pseudo-Paul. What impact does this have on Doherty's argument?
None. Doherty's argument is not that just Paul is silent, it is that all early Christian literature is silent. Plus it is not just that it is silent, in several cases it actively contraindicates an HJ.

Gerard
gstafleu is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 05:08 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstafleu View Post
None. Doherty's argument is not that just Paul is silent, it is that all early Christian literature is silent. Plus it is not just that it is silent, in several cases it actively contraindicates an HJ.

Gerard
But its not that simple. You have to explain the passages that seem to describe a human Jesus who was on earth. The two passages from Ephesians help make the argument that 1 Corinthians 2 is talking about "spiritual rulers", as opposed to earthly rulers.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 06:30 PM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
But its not that simple. You have to explain the passages that seem to describe a human Jesus who was on earth. The two passages from Ephesians help make the argument that 1 Corinthians 2 is talking about "spiritual rulers", as opposed to earthly rulers.
No they don't.

Ephesians 2 speaks of the the "ruler" (τὸν ἄρχοντα) "of the realm of the air" ( τῆς ἐξουσιας τοῦ ἀ�*ρος), whereas Paul in 1 Cor 2:6 speaks of the "rulers (ἄρχοντες) of this age" (τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτo).

That is to say -- especially in the light of (1) the author of Ephesians identifying "the ruler of the realm of the air" as the devil in 4:27 and "the evil one" in 6:11 , (2) the use by the Rabbis and Hellenistic writers of "age" to mean "things existing in time" , and (3) the fact that τούτo in 1 Cor 2:6 is emphatic and serves thereby to designate the "age" as both distinct from the wage to come and the present earthly order, "the state of things now present in the word, including the ethical and social conditions which are as yet unchanged by the coming of Christ (see Robertson & Plummer) -- Ephesians is not speaking of the same things as Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

Moreover, as 2 Enoch 29.4,5 shows,"the air" spoken of here is not a supernatural realm. Rather it is is in fact thought of as the region under the firmament. And as W. Wink has argued (Naming the Powers (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 84), the "realm of the air" ” is not the locale of demons but the world atmosphere, the matrix of inauthentic living". So even Ephesians is not speaking of a heavenly/otherworldly power.

And in the light of Ephesians 1:3, where ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, “in the heavenly realms,” designates the place where blessings are received, the "rulers referred to in Eph. 3:10 can hardly be demonic forces.

On this, see R. G. Bratcher, E.A. Nida, A Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians (or via: amazon.co.uk). New York : United Bible Societies, 1993 (UBS Handbook Series; Helps for Translators), S. 78

See also H Odeberg, The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Lunds Universitets Aersskrift. N.F. Avd. 1, Bd 29. Nr. 6. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1934), who argues on pp. 12, 13 that "the heavenlies" are not the equivalent of heaven in its denotation as the celestial regions in distinction from other parts of the universe but represent the whole of spiritual reality in which the Church participates, and so can be taken as the realm of the Church in Christ.

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 09:48 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Humans did not live under the firmament. Ergo...
The spirits that dwelt under the firmament did not have corruptible flesh. Ergo...denying that the region under the firmament was a supernatural realm doesnt negate the basic argument by Doherty: that denial simply shifts the argument to the ballpark of modern meaning of supernatural vs the ancient/platonic conception of the same.
But we do know that the ancients viewed the earth as located on the lowest layer relative to the moon and the stars, which they viewed as unmoving and unchanging - unlike the earth which, because of changing seasons and disease and death, was regarded as corruptible. I would argue that the ancients dualism consisted not of the natural vs supernatural but the corruptible vs the incorruptible.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 03:07 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Ephesians is now widely considered pseudo-Paul. What impact does this have on Doherty's argument?
It supports it. The relevant premise of Doherty's argument is not that Paul believed in a mythical Jesus, but that Paul and every other known Christian writer of the first century believed in a mythical Jesus.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 05:58 AM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman View Post
Humans did not live under the firmament.
Where then did they live?

Quote:
Ergo...
The spirits that dwelt under the firmament did not have corruptible flesh.
A non sequitur if there ever was one, let a fine example of the assertion of an irrelevant thesis, since the issue at hand is whether the ARXON and the ARXONTAI mentioned in Eph. 3 and 2 respectively are the same as those Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 2:6-8.

Quote:
Ergo...denying that the region under the firmament was a supernatural realm doesnt negate the basic argument by Doherty:
What "basic argument of Doherty are you talking about?

More importantly, denying "the basic argument of Doherty" -- what ever it is -- is not what is primarily at issue. Rather it is whether the ARXON/ARXONTAI of Ephesians help us to understand who the ARXONTAI of 1 Cor. 2:6-8 are.

Do you have anything relevant to say on that point?

Quote:
that denial simply shifts the argument to the ballpark of modern meaning of supernatural vs the ancient/platonic conception of the same.
And here I thought it was what the author of Ephesians was describing in chps 2 & 3. Silly me.

Quote:
But we do know that the ancients viewed the earth as located on the lowest layer relative to the moon and the stars,
Lowest layer of what? And will you please provide primary evidence showing (a) who these "ancients" you speak of are and (b) that they did indeed believe what you say they did?

Quote:
which they viewed as unmoving and unchanging - unlike the earth which, because of changing seasons and disease and death, was regarded as corruptible. I would argue that the ancients dualism consisted not of the natural vs supernatural but the corruptible vs the incorruptible.
And in doing so you'd be asserting a false dichotomy.

JG
jgibson000 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:40 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.