ApostateAbe

Christian leaders spun Jesus into a resurrected miracle-working Messiah and God, because they were leading cult members, and that is what the cult members really wanted to believe about their glorious leader. The crucifixion was at first an embarrassment, but, lucky for them, they could use Isaiah 53 to make it look like all part of the plan. Can you please cite the passage where Paul scoffs at Jews for demanding miracles? I just need to look it up. Thanks.

aa5874

How did your so-called cult members manage to make Jesus glorious?

In the NT, the handbook of Jesus, Peter had denied ever knowing Jesus the night before he was crucified and the other disciples had ran away.

Now, if Jesus did not resurrect and did not do any fabulous miracles, on what basis was he made glorious in Jerusalem where blasphemy is punishable by death?

The Pauline writings appear to be non-historical and does not reflect actual events in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

The deification of a Jew and equal to the God of Moses, with power to forgive sins, in Jerusalem is an historical implausibility or absurdity while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

ApostateAbe

aa5847, I think that is a pretty good objection, and I will answer your objections as long as they are reasonable and civil. You seem to think that myths of a miraculous Jesus in Jerusalem are unlikely because telling such myths is blasphemy, and the penalty for blasphemy in Jerusalem is death. But it seems as though blasphemy was only looked down upon in Jewish society, and the Sanhedrin had no authority to put someone to death. That authority rested with the Roman prefect, who would kill anyone who seems to be a threat. Jesus was not actually a miracle worker and did not resurrect, but there would seem to be nothing to keep the myth from spreading inside and outside Jerusalem. The Pauline writings do appear to reflect actual events, such as the Council of Jerusalem, also found in the book of Acts. Such a thing could not have happened after the diaspora of the Jews from Jerusalem.

Toto

The phrase used here does typically refer to demons, as in "Demon Haunted World." The ancients believed that demons controlled events on earth. Historicists argue that Paul meant that these demons acted through Pilate.

Please do some of your own research.



No - sorry - some of the critics go for 132 CE, after the Bar Kochba revolt

:banghead:

This may be a problem with your model, or with the whole idea of embarrassment.

Possibly because they had read Josephus? Except for Nazareth, which is a separate discussion.

...

Sorry, I can't spend more time on this right now.

Have you actually read Doherty's book or website? Many of your questions are answered.

GakuseiDon

Actually, I remember Peter Kirby doing analysis on that passage, and he made some good points that I think suggest strongly that Paul had human rulers in mind.

IIRC what he said was that the context pointed to the rulers being "rulers of men", and that the rulers being "demon rulers" didn't fit the context. This is the passage (NKJV), with key words highlighted:

1Cr 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,
1Cr 2:5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1Cr 2:6 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.
1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
1Cr 2:8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Cr 2:9 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."

Note that Paul is contrasting human wisdom with God's wisdom. Now, replace "rulers of this age" with "demon rulers", and reread 1Cr 2:6:

1Cr 2:5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1Cr 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the [wisdom of] demon rulers, who are coming to nothing...

Does it make sense that Paul has to say that he is not speaking the wisdom of the "demon rulers" among those who are mature?

Now, replace "rulers of this age" with "rulers of men", and it makes much more sense:

1Cr 2:5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1Cr 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the [wisdom of] rulers of men, who are coming to nothing...

If Paul is referring to human rulers, then the Romans were the ones using crucifixion, thus the human rulers most likely included Romans.

Have you investigated Doherty's answers? They raise many questions.

aa5874

I am only obligated to expose the fallacies you post. I really do not expect a response from you.

If you read the Jesus story you would see that Peter did NOT spread any glorious myth about Jesus after he was arrested, he blatantly lied or denied ever knowing Jesus and that he was associated with Jesus.

Again if you read the Gospels, the disciples ran away when Jesus was arrested, what glorious myth were they spreading while in fear of the Jews?

If the women who visited the burial site ran away trembling when the body of Jesus was found missing what glorious myth did they spread about Jesus while they were trembling and running?

If Jesus was NOT resurrected and the disciples were locked away or hiding in a house for fear of the Jews what glorious myth were they spreading about Jesus while hiding?

And, who could have deified Jesus in Jerusalem if he did not resurrect and die for a lie?

It was not Peter since he did not even know Jesus and was never with him. And the others were either trembling and/or hiding.

And was not the mother of Jesus looking for her son? He did not resurrect but his body was missing.

She can't go to Peter, he does not even know who Jesus was. He never seen the man in his entire life.

Please tell of the glorious myth that was spread by Mary, Peter and the disciples after Jesus was arrested.

ApostateAbe

As you may know, my preferred source of research to determine the meanings of words in the New Testament is the New Testament itself. The word ἀρχόντων is used five times in the New Testament. Two of those five times are in the disputed passage of 1 Corinthians. The remaining three refer to human rulers, not demons. If I knew where else to look, I may find out where ἀρχόντων refers to demons, not human, rulers. A big plus would be an external Greek writing where "rulers of this age" (ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος) is used to refer to demons, because the phrase does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament.
Toto, I know that. When I speak generally of scholarly opinion in this topic, I mean the majority agreement, not 100% agreement, because 100% agreement plainly does not exist about anything. Yes, I know.
Great, that is what I am talking about. If an MJ advocate proposes Josephus as a source, then you can't just leave it at that. It needs to have a central place in the entire model, because it is essentially important. Who were these Christians who had access to the writings of Josephus? They must have been notably in the upper class. How did they know the things about Palestine that Josephus didn't know? Why was their model of Pontius Pilate so different from the Josephus' Pontius Pilate? What does their sourcing of Josephus say about their intentions? Were they the same ones who interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum? I bet some good plausible answers can be provided to questions like these. After answers are provided to these questions, then we can effectively make a judgment of the plausibility of the whole theory.

I read a lot of Doherty's website, but it has been like five years since I did. Thank you for your help.

Toto

For reference, Who Crucified Jesus? The Rulers of this Age

Petergdi

You should notice that the idea that the idea that Paul's "the rulers of this age" meant, and would naturally be read as "demons" is incompatible with the idea that Mark is following Pauline ideas in this respect. In Mark, the demons know exactly who Jesus is. It is quite a major point in Mark.

And if James is any guide, there seems to be a general idea that demons know what is going on. But "the rulers of this age" in Paul did not know what we would expect demons to know.

Peter.

GakuseiDon

Yes, but I think Doherty's reading of Paul here is consistent with the Ascension of Isaiah, which implies that Satan and the demons wouldn't have had Jesus crucified if they knew who he really was (Jesus was in disguise on earth since he was in the flesh, and it wasn't until he started to ascend that he was recognised.)