Diogenes the Cynic

Paul is saying they didn't know Jesus was the Messiah. It doesn't matter what Jesus really was, since Paul is talking about his own beliefs, not reality (he's also avoiding criticizing the Romans).

Sheshbazzar

Gets all the weirder when you consider that this 'son of God' Jeebus, is also according to christian interpretation and theology, 'The mighty GOD, The Everlasting FATHER, The Prince of Peace." (Isa 9:6)

-Making Jeebus an illegitimate bastard son that incestuously impregnated Mary, HIS OWN MOTHER to give birth to that 'GOD' -'The Everlasting FATHER' -whom is supposed to be himself.

What is most amazing is that supposedly intelligent, rational, educated people buy into such religious horse-shit.

GakuseiDon

No, I don't need to postulate that. Let's not drag the Gospels into this, let Paul speak for himself. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 2:

4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written: ​​“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, ​Nor have entered into the heart of man, ​​The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

You can see that before and after the passages referring to the "rulers of this age" Paul is referring to **human wisdom**, and contrasting it with God's wisdom. But suddenly in 1 Cor 2:6, Paul has to tell his readers "we are not talking to Christians about the wisdom of demons"? I don't see it. So what wisdom is Paul talking about?

"Wisdom of this age" is thought to refer to the prevailing Greek philosophy and mysticism. The Greeks regard the message of the cross as "foolishness", and the Jews a "stumbling block". In 1 Cor 1, Paul tells us explicitly:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Compare "those who are perishing" here with 1 Cor 2's "who are coming to nothing". It is "foolishness" to the Greeks, as Paul explains further on. "Those who are perishing" in 1 Cor 1 refers to **humans**, not demons.

Paul goes on:

19 For it is written: ​​“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, ​​And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
​20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness

You can see how from 1 Cor 1 thru 1 Cor 2, there is an emphasis of "human wisdom/foolishness" vs "God's wisdom/foolishness". But suddenly Paul tells his readers that he isn't talking about the wisdom of demons? It is simply out of place.

As I said, let's not bring in the Gospels here. Let Paul speak for himself.

In 1 Cor, Paul tells us that the rulers of this age wouldn't have crucified Jesus if they knew God's wisdom. If Paul is referring to human rulers here, how do we square this with Rom 13? I think the obvious point here is that, Paul has already given them an out: they were ignorant!

This is what Paul writes to the Romans (the Romans in Rome, under a Roman Emperor!) about how Christians should view those given authority over the world (which came about by God's design rather than a random event):

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Paul is probably writing to the Romans not long after the reign of Caligula. Could Paul have thought that there had **never** been a ruler who has ruled unjustly? I doubt that very much. Paul is telling the Christians that they must be good citizens, as he goes on to describe:

5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

How does Jesus being crucified by earthly leaders fit into this? Paul has already provided an explanation: they wouldn't have done it if they had known God's wisdom.

aa5874

What a Load of BS!!! What are you using to date Paul??? The Seneca/Paul letters or Acts of the Apostles???

You have been posting here far too long to keep on making those mistakes. There is NO credible source of antiquity that corroborates the character called Paul.

Paul is NOT likely to be a 1st century character--No writings from Paul have been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE and Apologetic sources appear NOT to really known when Paul lived, died, what he wrote and when he wrote.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul died under Nero and ALSO claimed he was AWARE of gLuke.

It has been deduced that gLuke was written LONG AFTER Nero was dead.

Another Apologetic source claimed Paul wrote his seven letters AFTER Revelation.

The evidence suggests Paul is probably an INVENTED character.

Without credible corroboration the authenticity of the Pauline writings cannot be argued.

GakuseiDon

Earl, I am not asking for your speculation here. I'm asking for passages by Paul to support your view. Forget the Gospels. Forget the other writings. Lets look at Paul first. If we need to bring in other writings later on, that's fine. But let's see your case from Paul first.

Where does Paul tell us that the demons are still fighting the gospel message even though they know they're doomed? Isn't this just your speculation? Let's start with Paul first.

At the least, you recognise your reading provides a contradiction! Wouldn't a reading that does NOT provide a contradiction be superior to your reading?

aa5874

Without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles you Must Speculate when the Pauline writings are used alone.

There is NO date affixed to any Pauline letters and it is NOT possible to follow the chronology of any event with respect to Paul and Jesus.


When was Jesus crucified in the Pauline letters???

There is NO answer.

When did Jesus die for OUR Sins in the Pauline letters???

There is NO answer.

When did Jesus resurrected on the Third day??

There is NO answer???

When did the Pauline writer go to Arabia???

There is NO answer.

The Pauline writings ANSWER one question.

They have MORE THAN ONE author.

The Pauline writings on their own suggest that we have a massive fraud on our hands.

Grog

She has said publically that she takes care of Casey. It's an interesting arrangement, one bound to raise eyebrows and not just out of puerile voyeurism, but also just plain academics. If you know about academia, then you know how this could look to others. Has Casey played a role in her academic career? I could see a conflict of interest coming into play. I have definitely seen grad/doc students advance their career by insinuating themselves into ingratiating positions with people in power.

I want to emphasize that I am only commenting on the appearance of this arrangement AND from a very long distance away. Not like my own grad days when I rented half a house from a professor who had a regular undergrad sleepover visitor while the Mrs. was out of the country. I am NOT suggesting there is anything untoward going on in the relationship between the big Mo and his grad student/attendant/housemate (?) Stephanie Fisher.

Solo

Comments on Hoffmann's Contortium posted on my blog

Best,
Jiri

Grog

I enjoyed the essay.

tanya

I agree.

Looking forward to your forthcoming book....