Kapyong

Gday,

Well,
sometime "this age" is hardly "recent past" is it ?

Not to mention the fact that this passage is usually taken to refer to spiritual powers, whose "age" could be vast.


K.

aa5874

There were recorders in antiquity. People would write, write, write. Writing was the most used and only predominant means of recording information.

Now, if the whole tale was made up then you should see that there is no real need to place the Pauline writer in the actual presence of made up characters.

The Church writers have gotten or appear to have gotten every time zone and authorship wrong and a CONSISTENT pattern has developed.

The Church writers are trying to claim that the books in the Canon are earlier than they really were.

When the Pauline writings are isolated or taken out the picture it is noticed that virtually all the books of the Canon have been erroneously dated by the Church. All the books of the Canon, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation were really WRITTEN AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Without the Pauline Epistles, the Church writers have virtually a 100% track record of attempting and/or providing erroneous and mis-leading information to place the books of the NT before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

And when the Pauline writings are examined so far perhaps up to 50% are out of the early time zone given by the Church. The very same CONSISTENT pattern has been observed.

Pauline writings that were claimed to be early are now considered later, that is, AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Perhaps as much as 50% of the so-called Pauline writings are considered later than the Church writers would have us believe.

And then when it is taken into account that the Jesus stories show very little sign of actual history then it must be realised the entire Canon was erroneously or deliberately placed early by the Church to HISTORICISE their GOD/MAN.

There was no external historical source for their God/Man so Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were introduced as historical sources to HISTORICISE the God/Man.

Once all the books of the Canon are placed AFTER the Fall of the Temple, the GOD/MAN of the CHURCH vanishes into thin air.

The Pauline GOD/MAN was fiction.

There is no need to have an actual Pauline character in the 1st century in Jerusalem at around 40 CE obviously lying to Jews about a GOD/MAN who had the power to abolish the Laws of God including circumcision.

The entire Canon makes a lot of sense once the stories contained about their GOD/MAN were written at a time when only belief was needed.

A late Canon, AFTER the Fall of the Temple, enhances the believeabilty of the non-historical God/man story.

spamandham

If I use the expression 'modern age', do you take that to include the distant hazy past, or do you presume I'm rather vaguely referring to roughly the last 100 years or so?

I don't think that's the usual take on the passage in regard to the 'rulers of this age'. I'm sure there's a possible argument that the rulers are meant to be spiritual powers, but that sure doesn't seem like straightforward read to me.

angelo

There are many reasons why the whole story of Jesus as presented to us in the N/T is not authentic, and liberalised myth.
Here are four reasons that i can think of that I read from somewhere.

1. There is no external historical confirmation for the N/T stories.
2. The N/T tales are internally contradictory in most parts.
3. There are natural explanations for the origin of the Jesus myth.
4. The miracle stories on their own make the whole story unhistorical unless one believes in magic.
There will be some who will exclaim: what about Josephus, or Tacitus? Don't they confirm the historical Jesus? In a word, no. Both accounts were written at or the beginning of the second century, by this time the tale had become tradition. They both were reporting what was already tradition by then. Besides, Josephus begins his history of the Jews in the garden of Eden. If the mention of Jesus is believed, then why not Adam and Eve as reported by Josephus as well?

Kapyong

Gday,

Oh please -
it's not about you and the phrase "modern age".

It's about Paul and the "archons of this aeon".

Which at best, means rulers of this earthly age - not recent at all.

So, your "1/2 a dozen" examples of Paul placing Jesus in the "recent past" turns out to be ONE example of Paul possibly placing Jesus within the AGE at best.


K.

Notsri

It's an interesting but, in my opinion, an unlikely interpretation.

First, there is nothing that I can see in the text to suggest the allegorizing in 4:24-31 is somehow present in 4:4. It is not something that Paul states, at any rate. (V. 24 suggests the allegory begins with the subject spelled out in vv. 22-23 and then proceeds from there.)

Second, you implicitly raise a number of additional problems such as how to interpret "born under the law" in v. 4 and "those who were under the law" in v. 5. If we interpret those terms allegorically as well, it seems to me to render the entire passage unintelligible. Who are, e.g., "those who were under the law" if not literally the Jews?? And if literally the Jews, then what basis is there for taking one term allegorically but another literally? It seems arbitrary to me.

Third, as I've already mentioned, born of woman is a Hebraism, and its referent is always human. So it goes in the biblical book of Job, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic Midrashim both early and late, the Talmudim, certain of the Heikhalot texts, and even in some of the so-called contra Judaeus literature such as The Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus [the Jew]. But then not in Galatians?? I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

show_no_mercy

"Son of Man" is also a Hebraism meant to signify a regular human being, but as we all know it took on a totally different meaning in the NT. So who knows.

spamandham

There are others, but there's no point in discussing them if you are willing to hand wave this one away.

Kapyong

Gday,

Oh please !

I showed this was NOT a reference to the "recent past" at all - an "age" lasts for ages, Jesus could have been from the start of the age, that's IF we allow if meant an earthly age.

So -
there are no references in Paul which place Jesus in the recent past.


K.

spamandham

That's what you claimed. But, you didn't show it to be the case, you merely stated that it could be the case.

...based on a single sentence?