andrewcriddle

I'm afraid you misunderstood my argument. Apologies if I was unclear.

To avoid the possibility of misunderstanding I should have said: Assume FTSOA that the rulers of this world are heavenly powers not human rulers and that these heavenly powers killed Christ directly without using human agents.

My point is that if Paul believed in such spiritual world rulers then this is part of a world view with wide implications. These spiritual world rulers must have a much wider role than simply killing Christ. They are the spiritual reality behind important elements of the world of everyday experience, almost certainly including the authority structures of the everyday world. (This assumes that Paul's alleged views of heavenly world rulers are related to the views of others in his culture holding similar views but this is IMO a safe assumption.)


If the crucifixion of Christ by human rulers is incompatible with Romans 13, then so is the claim that the spiritual world rulers, (the forces behind human power structures), killed Christ directly without making use of their human agents. Both possibilities have the same implication, that the authority figures of this world, when confronted with things outside their normal experience, can in ignorance kill the innocent and righteous.

I don't myself see a conflict between a generally positive attitude towards the powers that be and a belief that as part of God's plan of redemption, these powers put Christ to death. But, if there is such a conflict, then having Christ killed directly by spiritual powers rather than by their human agents does not resolve it.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Romans 1:18 is, I agree, directly referring to the Gentiles.

Paul however clearly believes that (unbelieving) Jews as well as Gentiles are under God's wrath. See for example Romans 3:5 (The supposed objector here is a Jew and the question of whether or not God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? means is God justified in displaying his wrath to unbelieving Jews ? )

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

I'm not relying on the Gospels, but showing that, even where it is clearly portrayed that the Romans crucified Jesus, we don't see any blame placed on them.

True, but that would strengthen my point I think. Why then portray Pilate as willing to let Jesus go, and portraying the crowd as the ones demanding crucifixion?

I think Toto hit the nail on the head above. According to your reading, Paul is not just saying that Jesus wasn't crucified unfairly, but that no authorities at any time have persecuted anyone unfairly at all. Isn't that how you are reading Paul in Rom 13? This despite Paul's claim to have persecuted early Christians in Judea, and Paul himself claiming to be imprisoned and whipped for preaching his beliefs?

Personally I think 1 Thes 2:13-17 is an interpolation, since it reads like something from Second Century Christianity.

My point is that Paul is consistent in not putting the blame on the authorities for the crucifixion. As I explained earlier, that would imply that Jesus' crucifixion was just bad timing (i.e. if there had been better leaders, then Jesus wouldn't have been crucified). But we see the same view in all early Christian literature as far as I can see: Jesus was rejected by the Jewish people.

Solo

This would have been a plot in Mark's mystery passion tale. Jesus' "let the scriptures be fulfilled" in 14:49 sets the sccene. The "scriptures" pluralized include Paul's letters, and mostly them. The hostility of the Jews and the bemused Pilate fulfills 1 Cor 1:23 : ...Christ crucified, an offense to Jews and folly to Gentiles. Pilate was pictured as a "civilized Roman" who would have been appalled by the Jews' cry for Jesus' blood. (Note the function of 15:10 in the plot). That Pilate would have freed Barabbas, and had Jesus crucified in his place was of course the ultimate folly. It would have instantly exposed the prefect to a charge of 'maiestas' (treason) as the other Son of Father, is portrayed as a classical legal exhibit of adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem (enemy of the Roman people, or, their safety).

Best,
Jiri

EarlDoherty

Some reasons not to go along with Bart Ehrman in trusting in the authenticity of 1 Thess. 2:15-16:

Romans 11 speaks of Elijah’s words about the Jews who have killed Gods’s prophets, but Paul inserts no mention about them having killed the Son of God himself. In 11:7-12 he speaks of the Jews having “blind eyes and deaf ears”—not to Jesus’ own person and preaching but, as Romans 10 has just presented it, to the voice of apostles like himself; he refers to this as their “failure” but no failure in regard to murdering God’s divine messenger. Strange that an authentic Paul, according to Ehrman, can speak of God’s wrath coming upon the Jews for killing the Lord Jesus in 1 Thess., yet here that wrath and killing are nowhere in evidence in Paul’s mind.

Why would Paul say that it was the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus? That indeed *would* be “truly odd on the pen of Paul.” He constantly says that Jesus was crucified. Did he truly believe that the Jews had crucified Jesus, or that they had a legal right to do so, or that crucifixion was their practice? Could he possibly have believed that the Romans had no role, or possibly have been ignorant of it? If it be suggested that he deliberated twisted history to demonize the jews, that would speak to an utter rejection and vilification of those Jews, something not borne out in the rest of his writings, or even contradicted by them, such as in Romans 11:

Ehrman, of course, fudges Paul’s words by declaring that he meant that the Jews were “ultimately responsible” for Jesus’ death, even if the Romans performed the crucifixion. Of course, that's 'reading into' the passage something that isn't evidently there. In fact, Paul nowhere else states that *anyone* on earth was responsible for Jesus’ death, but it was the “rulers of this age” which is judged by many of today’s scholars and virtually all the ancient commentators, to be referring to the demon spirits. (This is reminiscent of those who claim that Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23 meant by “for I received from the Lord” not the plain meaning of personal revelation from the Lord to Paul himself, but that these words ultimately derived from Jesus.)

Strange that Ehrman can seize on Paul’s authentic use of the term “wrath” of God in a general sense to make it specifically apply to Jews in order to authenticate their ‘killing of the Lord Jesus’, yet he cannot on the reverse side take into account the many indicators in Paul that such sentiments as 1 Thes. 2:16 are likely INauthentic.

(Whereas it is precisely in a time later than Paul, namely early in the 2nd century, that we could envision an interpolator being precisely guilty of twisting history—or rather the account in the Gospels—in order to demonize the Jews who by then were in a state of alienation from the Christian movement. Can Ehrman truly believe that Paul would have called the Jews “enemies of their fellow-men”?)

Edit to add: One might also note that this passage starts out as Paul empathizing with his converts in Thessalonia who are suffering at the hands of unbelieving Thessalonicans (presumably gentiles), and he compares them with the suffering of congregations of believers in Judea at the hands of non-believers there, who happen to be Jews. In both locales, it is the sect undergoing persecution at the hands of the local establishment. It seems a simple little comparison, with the Judaean side of it playing the minor role in relation to the passage's focus. So it seems out of place for Paul to then go on and spout an out-of-proportion diatribe against Jews in general. The flow is off, a definite overkill that doesn't seem to belong.

Nor is Ehrman’s argument about no textual evidence of an absence of 2:15-16 in surviving manuscripts very compelling, considering that a good century could have elapsed between interpolation and our first extant witness to the epistle. Unlike the Gospels, I can envision no compelling reason why 1 Thessalonians should have been that widely copied before the late 2nd century so as to have a copy lacking the passage liable to come down to us. Ehrman asks why such “older copies” were not copied, but he as a textual expert is surely familiar with the common occurrence that when passages were missing or regarded (consciously or unconsciously) as erroneously worded, a scribe in the process of reproducing them often added missing words or ‘corrected’ differences in wording he was already familiar with. As for Marcion, even if he included the epistle in his canon, we cannot tell if it included or lacked the passage in question.

Haven’t yet read the rest of the thread, so hopefully this response to Ehrman’s views given thus far isn't too stale.

By the way, my cataract operation in the first eye went well (I can now spot a fly on a horse’s ass with it from a hundred feet). Trouble is, until I get the other eye done and get corrective lenses for close-up work (like working at the computer screen), the anomaly between the eyes creates a bit of a strain, so I’ll be pacing myself for a week until I can hopefully get a temporary lens for the new eye.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Well, something is radically wrong with your statement.
READ PAUL in Galatians

Galatians 1:13 KJVGalatians 1 Incredibly, even before PAUL preached the faith Israel did NOT reject Jesus Christ Crucified and that is PRECISELY why Paul PERSECUTED the Jews who Preached Christ Crucified Before Him.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

Paul FORGOT that he was supposed to be living Before the Temple fell, c 70 CE and that he Persecuted Jews to whom Christ Crucified was NOT a stumblingblock.

In Acts of the Apostles 2.22-41, Peter spoke to the MEN of Israel and told them that they Crucified Christ and on that day 3000 Men of Israel were baptized and converted.

In Acts of the Apostles 8, the very Saul/Paul made Havoc in the Church of Jerusalem and entered EVERY House and haling men and women to prison and CONSENTING to the death of Stephen.

Christ Crucified was Not a stumblingblock to the Men and Women of Israel.

It was PAUL who was a stumblingblock and consented to the Murder of A Jew who preached Christ Crucified in Acts .

Please, READ PAUL for PAUL.

Galatians 1 The Pauline writings are Anachronistic. Paul forgot that he was supposed to be the Stumblingblock for Jews who preached Christ Crucified Before Him.

maryhelena

Nice one aa......:notworthy:

Christ crucified was not a stumbling block to those who were prior to 'Paul'.

The gospel crucifixion of JC story is modeled upon the death of Antigonus - 37 b.c. Antigonus, according to Cassius Dio, was bound to a stake/cross, scourged and later slain. (beheaded according to Josephus). That historical event - a crucifixion, a binding to a stake/cross of a King and High Priest of the Jews - would be reason for a rallying cry against Rome and it's Herodian agents. No Jew would find this event a stumbling block. The very idea is preposterous. Herod the Great, according to Josephus, lived in fear - and even later, we have Herod (Antipas) being in fear of JtB and the prospect of an uprising.

The question becomes - how did 'Paul' turn this around and find value in the crucifixion of a man - and thus attempt to squash the seeds of what would be a futile political rebellion? How did 'Paul' turn a negative into a positive. He simply changed the context. From a physical reality to a spiritual, intellectual, context. In that intellectual/spiritual context the demons, or whoever, crucified his JC. And with that 'good news', 'Paul's JC became a stumbling block to those who were not prepared for the philosophical transfer from earthly realities to intellectual/spiritual realities.

With that philosophical transfer - 'Paul' was able to give the earthly realities a clean slate for doing good. They did not crucify his cosmic JC. (one can take this further: the earthly powers that punish the bad - that's simply the Law of human nature we all live under - try jumping off a tall building - try going without food etc; do wrong against the 'laws' by which we live our physical lives - and the law/rulers will come down swift and hard....)

Taking the words of 'Paul' literally will always end up in confusion and contradictions. Rather than label 'Paul' a liar etc - rather think that the writer who originated this material is worthy of being labeled a genius. For myself - I stand in awe of the intellect that produced this work.

aa5874

You seem to have missed the point

The Pauline writer has been caught--HE was LIVING After the Temple Fell c 70 CE.

In Galatians Paul claimed he Persecuted the Church of God and that there were Churches in Judea.

Christ Crucified could NOT have been a stumblingblock to Jews.

In Romans 11.22, the Pauline writer claimed Severity fell on the Jews but such a claim makes NO sense if Jews were in Christ.

Thousands of Jews were converted in Acts as much as 5000 persons in a day.

In Acts 7-8, there was a GREAT Persecution Stephen was Murder under the consent of Paul and many were imprisonned after a house to house campaign against those who preached Christ Crucified.

In Acts 9, Paul was HUNTING down Jews who preached Christ Crucified in Damascus.

Christ Crucified was NOT a stumblingblock to Jews if Paul was attempting to bound JEWS who preached Christ Crucified in Damascus and bring to Jerusalem.

There is a Contradiction--Christ Crucified was either a stumblingblock or NOT.

The Persecution of Jews who preached Christ Crucified before the Fall of the Temple by the Pauline writer appears to be an INVENTION.

The Pauline writings were written AFTER the Fall of the Temple, after Severity fell on the Jews. There is no historical records that Jews preached Christ Crucified BEFORE or AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The Pauline writer must have forgotten that he was supposed to have been a persecutor of Jews who preached Christ Crucified.

Paul was the stumblingblock to the preaching of Christ Crucified.

The earliest story, gMark, of Christ Crucified was AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

The Pauline writer lived after the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

maryhelena

Nope - the Pauline writer has not been caught - it's how you interpret his words that gives you that impression.

See above - depends upon how you interpret 'Paul'. And check out the Jewish history re the last King and High Priest of the Jews. 'Paul' gives no dating for his crucifixion story - whether interpreted literally or spiritually/intellectually.

That depends upon the context you are reading into 'Paul'.
The Pauline writer - and who exactly was the Pauline writer??? aa, you don't know - so you can't go making assumptions about 'Paul'. 'Paul' is just as much a literary creation as is JC. And that is as big a hurdle for some mythicists to 'get' as it is for the historicists to accept that the gospel JC is a literary creation.

aa5874

Well, NOPE to you--The Pauline writer has been caught. It is NOT my personal interpretation that the Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith.

You TOO have interpreted the words of Paul and have understood that he did claim he Persecuted the Faith.

Once Paul claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith that he PRESENTLY PREACHED then Christ Crucified was NOT a stumblingblock to the Jews.

It was Paul himself, based on his statement, and even in Acts of the Apostles, that Paul was a Stumblingblock to those Jews who preached Christ Crucified before him.

It is NOT my personal interpretation that there is NO credible source of antiquity that show Persecutions of a Jesus cult BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.


The Pauline writer has been caught in an ANACHRONISTIC position.

The Persecution of those who preached Christ Crucified was AFTER the Fall of the Temple.