Ted Hoffman

No big loss to me. I have made my point.

Rick Sumner

Presuming your point was that you admittedly reached your conclusion a priori, one must wonder if you truly had one to begin with.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby

Thesaurus Lingua Graecae, published by UCI, is supposed to be a comprehensive collection of texts from antiquity, which would include any platonists or other pagans as a matter of course. The phrase "rulers of this age"--indeed the phrase "of this age" or "of this world-order" (TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU)--does not show up in non-Christian writings. I have seeked, and not found.

But the word ARXON does appear thousands of times in non-Christian (and Christian) literature. For example, there are over seven hundred in Plato alone, as you can see from this Perseus report:

Perseus search for 'rulers' in Plato

best,
Peter Kirby

Magdlyn

Wouldn't it be "sought?" :devil3:

Ted Hoffman

Kirby,
I see no mention of Origen in the page. Does that mean Origen never used the expression (or its variant) or does that mean Origen's works have been excluded in the collection?
And btw, do you agree that Origen's works contained platonic ideas?

GakuseiDon

Perhaps a better way to put it is: stop assuming! It seems your points are built on assumptions: if Paul was a HJer, he would say "archon" instead of "archons"; he would say that the Jews or the Romans killed Christ, not Satan.

Yet, we have examples of later HJ writers that say that Satan caused the Jews to kill Christ (AoI), and that "archons" killed Christ (Acts). Yes, they are late, but there doesn't appear to be any reason why Paul couldn't be referring to the same ideas. Stop assuming that he doesn't, and give me reason to believe that he doesn't.

The point that you seem to forget is that Paul believed that Christ resurrected and then appeared to a number of people after His death. He also appeared to Paul. Christ wasn't just some ordinary man to Paul, even if He was historical. He was someone who had cosmic significance. I see no reason to believe that Paul thought that Christ wasn't killed by a conspiracy of evil "archons", both earthly and spiritual, in the way described by AoI.

I've only really just started looking at Paul. But on the 2nd C apologists, I find that Doherty has (in my opinion) deliberately misrepresented them in order to construct proof for his theory. So yes, my opinion has shifted in the last year.

NO. A HJer could believe that Christ was killed by "spiritual" influences, e.g. Judas was influenced by Satan to betray Christ. The Jewish leaders were influenced by Satan to kill Christ.

You've missed my point on this a few times. In AoI, the final (HJer) redactor leaves in the bit about Satan killing Christ. To me, this means that the redactor didn't consider this incompatible to his beliefs. (Your answer was that the redactor suffered from "editorial exhaustion"). Why couldn't Paul, either? That AoI or Acts was "late" is only significant if you can show that the "early" position was different. But this is assumed by you, not proved.

One thing that Doherty says somewhere is that early Christianity was a kaleidoscope of ideas. Yet he seems to want to pin HJ Christianity into a small box. Why couldn't the early Christians actually believe that a pre-existing HJ came to earth, was incarnated, and then killed by Satan via the Jews or Romans? Why couldn't one group - the Pauline stream - have regarded that "Christ crucified" was the central dogma that they had to concentrate on?

I just can't see any reason to believe that there wasn't the two early streams - Pauline and Jerusalem Group - and both believed in a HJ.

Peter Kirby

Yes, it is 'sought'.

Your answer is already clearly stated above. The phrase "rulers of this age" is found 83 times in the TLG--once in First Corinthians and then 82 times in subsequent Christian authors. The word ARXON does appear thousands of times in non-Christian (and Christian) literature. To give just one example, it appears over 700 times in Plato. And then I link to "Perseus search for 'rulers' in Plato." Very clear.

Among the subsequent Christian authors, Origen is one. After all, Origen does present his interpretation of the phrase in First Corinthians. But you already know this, since you have appealed to Origen on that point.

Don't ask me. If one wants an answer, one should define what constitutes "platonic ideas," and then look for any quotes where Origen displays them.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

I agree that Paul considered the pre-existent Christ and the Resurrected Christ to be cosmically significant but he seems to me to have considered the Incarnated Christ (wherever that took place) to have been ordinary at best. His Incarnated Christ has no reputation as a miracle-worker, healer, prophet, preacher, or wisdom teacher.

It seems to me that, given a HJ who was any of those things, belief in him as any or all of those things would necessarily precede the beliefs Paul expresses.

Is it reasonable to assume that his revelatory experience was so powerful that he was able to entirely ignore all the living activities that preceded the resurrection experiences of the Disciples?

Is it reasonable to assume that his desire to avoid granting any appearance of greater authority to the Disciples was so strong that he felt compelled to ignore those activities?

GakuseiDon

According to Paul, the early church was involved in prophecy and speaking of tongues. AFAIK, he records none of what was said. If this was a source of communication from Christ, why wouldn't he record who said what, and the most important revelations?

He records just the one conversation with Peter. He doesn't record any conversations with the other apostles. He believed that Christ appeared to the apostles and the 500, and even to Paul himself, but barely a mention is made. Should we assume that Christ had nothing important to say on those occasions?

There are only a couple of places where Paul uses a teaching from Christ: the Lord's Supper, and a statement about divorce. To me, that Paul brings up a minor topic (AFAICS) like divorce, hints that there was a whole lot of other teachings around. It hardly seems credible that Christ (MJ or HJ) just taught on the Lord's Supper and divorce.

So, did Paul have more information than that, or not? I'd say that he did. The question is, why didn't he put it in?

As reasonable as assuming that Christ's post-resurrection appearances were so unimportant that Paul barely mentions them.

There may be some truth in this. Paul felt that he was there to preach Christ to the Gentiles, so may not have wanted to highlight TJG's emphasis on Mosaic Law. Part of this would have been downplaying that part of Jesus's teachings (assuming that Paul knew those teachings, and believed them to be genuine).

From an MJ perspective, did Paul believe that the other apostles had valid post-resurrection experiences? If so, why not record them? Paul gives no details on his OWN post-resurrection experience. Should we conclude that this was unimportant to him?

Amaleq13

If any of those revelations were both supportive of his own preaching and considered authoritative by his audience, I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't and can only assume none met those criteria. Yet, as Doherty points out, there are many examples of teachings provided in the Gospels that would have served to conclusively support claims Paul made.

I see no reason to assume resurrection appearances necessarily involved communication by the apparition. I think you are comparing apples and oranges, though. The Risen Christ is not primarily a teacher but a source of salvation simply through being resurrected. The Living Jesus, on the other hand, was what he did and said.

I think it is misleading to call revelations from the Risen Christ "teaching". I wouldn't expect these kinds of ecstatic utterances to be recorded. I would expect everyone present to be caught up in the emotional energy of the moment.

At best, it hints that there were a other revelations around.

I disagree with regard to the former since that is clearly not the primary purpose of the Sacrificed Savior's existence. The Gospel stories certainly agree with regard to the latter but revelations from the Risen Christ completely ignore any teachings of a living prophet.

I not only don't consider that reasonable, I don't consider it an accurate description of Paul's beliefs. The appearances are clearly considered important in that they are described as the start of the theology he eventually embraced. In addition, "barely mentioning" the resurrection appearances is hardly analogous to completely ignoring the activities attributed to the living Jesus in the Gospel stories.

I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. The only difference between his and theirs was that theirs came earlier.

To serve what purpose? Mentioning that Jesus performed healings would link directly to his own ministry. Mentioning specific teachings that supported Paul's theology would, likewise, serve his purposes.

Yes. If he thought the details were important, I think we can safely assume Paul would have described his own experience. The only thing that seems to have been important to Paul, however, was the fact that the Risen Christ appeared. Period.