Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 11-12-2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Not all Christians thought so.

Paul thought that Jesus was crucified by demons. The word that Paul uses for "rulers" is a word he regularly uses for demonic "heavenly" spirits.

Can you provide passages to support that statement? Paul refers to "rulers" [archon] in the following passages:

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

1 Cor 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

There is also another reference to Eph 2:2 ("the prince of the power of the air") which is not generally considered written by Paul.

In Rom 13:3, "archon" appears to refer to earthly rulers.

In 1 Cor 2:6, "archon" also appears to refer to earthly rulers, since it doesn't make sense that Paul would infer that Christians might be talking about the "wisdom of demons" among them "that are perfect", e.g. if we use that meaning, we see this:

1 Cor 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor [the wisdom of demons], that come to nought...

Does Paul really need to tell his readers that Christians were not talking to other Christians about the wisdom of demons? Does Paul even talk about the "wisdom" of demons at all anywhere else? Given that Paul is also talking about human wisdom in the passage directly before (in 1 Cor 2:5: "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God"), then "wisdom of demons" in 1 Cor 2:6 seems out of place.

One thing to ask here is whether Paul is alluding to the OT. One hint is in Acts, which also refers to "rulers":

Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers [archon] were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together...

Acts 4:26 is a reference to Psalm 2, which talks about the Lord and His Annointed, who is the Son:

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
...
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way

This Psalm seems to provide the context to Paul: the rulers of the earth gather together against the Lord, but it is in vain, as the Anointed One of God shall break them. This Anointed One is the "begotten son". Elsewhere Paul tells us that Christ was appointed Son of God after crucifixion and resurrection. Psalm 2 tells the kings to "be wise", and serve the Lord. In Paul, though, we see that they weren't wise. The "rulers of this age" crucify Christ, and the crucifixion leads to Christ being appointed Son of God, and thus the kings will perish.

Well if Ephesians isn't an authentic letter of Paul, then I guess it would have less weight. But you did leave out one very important part of Romans:

Romans 8:38

38 πεπεισμαι γαρ οτι ουτε θανατος ουτε ζωη ουτε αγγελοι ουτε αρχαι ουτε ενεστωτα ουτε μελλοντα ουτε δυναμεις...

38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers...

Why would Paul counterpoint "angels" with princes?

GakuseiDon · 11-12-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Well if Ephesians isn't an authentic letter of Paul, then I guess it would have less weight.

On the contrary. If, as you say, the word that Paul uses for "rulers" implies demons, then instead of "the ruler of the power of the air", it would come across as something like "the **demon** of the power of the air". It is similar to the point I make above about 1 Cor 2, where I argue that Paul is unlikely to be talking about "the wisdom of demons". The word used for "ruler/prince" does not in itself appear to have any connotation of "human" or "demon". We need to get that from the context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

But you did leave out one very important part of Romans:

Romans 8:38

38 πεπεισμαι γαρ οτι ουτε θανατος ουτε ζωη ουτε αγγελοι ουτε αρχαι ουτε ενεστωτα ουτε μελλοντα ουτε δυναμεις...

38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers...

Why would Paul counterpoint "angels" with princes?

"Princes"? He doesn't. :huh: It's a different word. I'm not sure of your point here?

show_no_mercy · 11-12-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

But you did leave out one very important part of Romans:

Romans 8:38

38 πεπεισμαι γαρ οτι ουτε θανατος ουτε ζωη ουτε αγγελοι ουτε αρχαι ουτε ενεστωτα ουτε μελλοντα ουτε δυναμεις...

38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers...

Why would Paul counterpoint "angels" with princes?

"Princes"? He doesn't. :huh: It's a different word. I'm not sure of your point here?

Paul is talking about the archons here, and counterpoints it with the angels - as opposed to "princes" in your other interpretations of his use of archons.

GakuseiDon · 11-12-2010, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

But you did leave out one very important part of Romans:

Romans 8:38

38 πεπεισμαι γαρ οτι ουτε θανατος ουτε ζωη ουτε αγγελοι ουτε αρχαι ουτε ενεστωτα ουτε μελλοντα ουτε δυναμεις...

38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers...

Why would Paul counterpoint "angels" with princes?

"Princes"? He doesn't. :huh: It's a different word. I'm not sure of your point here?

Paul is talking about the archons here, and counterpoints it with the angels - as opposed to "princes" in your other interpretations of his use of archons.

Paul isn't using the word "archon". He is using the word "arche", which means "beginning", "origin", and usually translated here as "principalities". What connection do you see between the word "arche" with the word "archon" and its meaning?

andrewcriddle · 11-13-2010, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The "Lives the Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius show without any reasonable doubt that writers who were non-Jesus believers were not much different from writers of today.

It WAS the authors of the NT, including "Paul", who were fairy tale fiction writers posing as historians.

Examine the "Life of Tiberius" by Suetonius.

Quote:

.....5 Some have supposed that Tiberius was born at Fundi, on no better evidence than that his maternal grandmother was a native of that place, and that later a statue of Good Fortune was set up there by decree of the senate.

But according to the most numerous and trustworthy authorities, he was born at Rome, on the Palatine, the sixteenth day before the Kalends of December, in the consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Munatius Plancus (the former for the second time) while the war of Philippi was going on.

In fact it is so recorded both in the calendar and in the public gazette.

Yet in spite of this some write that he was born in the preceding year, that of Hirtius and Pansa, and others in the following year, in the consulate of Servilius Isauricus and Lucius Antonius....

There is no DOUBT whatsoever that non-Christian writers did use sources which today's writers would have used. Today's historians would surely use PUBLIC records.

It was JESUS believers who INVENTED their sources which NO credible historian would have done today.

The "Life of Tiberius" by Suetonius may be an example of the problems of working with Ancient Historians. Suetonius records large amounts of lurid material about what the elderly Tiberius got up to at Capri, with little indication of how he (Suetonius) knows about this. (It is most unlikely to have been recorded in public records.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 11-13-2010, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The "Lives the Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius show without any reasonable doubt that writers who were non-Jesus believers were not much different from writers of today.

It WAS the authors of the NT, including "Paul", who were fairy tale fiction writers posing as historians.

Examine the "Life of Tiberius" by Suetonius.

There is no DOUBT whatsoever that non-Christian writers did use sources which today's writers would have used. Today's historians would surely use PUBLIC records.

It was JESUS believers who INVENTED their sources which NO credible historian would have done today.

The "Life of Tiberius" by Suetonius may be an example of the problems of working with Ancient Historians. Suetonius records large amounts of lurid material about what the elderly Tiberius got up to at Capri, with little indication of how he (Suetonius) knows about this. (It is most unlikely to have been recorded in public records.)

Andrew Criddle

You are not making much sense.

Are you implying that ALL LURID material found in books by today's historians can be found in PUBLIC records?

I have ALREADY pointed out to you that Suetonius claimed he was AWARE of Public records of Tiberius and that he DID USE the Public records to determine the birth of Tiberius which today's historians would have done.

I have ALREADY shown that gMatthew could NOT have used Public records to show that Jesus the CHILD of the Holy Ghost.

It is therefore reasonable to deduce that it was the Christian writers who were likely to INVENT their OWN history which is QUITE unlike today's historians

Guest46854 · 11-17-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Mercy:

That Paul thought that Jesus was crucified by demons in the sense you mean, if that’s what he actually thought, doesn’t prevent his crucifixion by the Romans from being a fact. It would simply mean that Paul was wrong. It is obvious that Jesus wasn’t crucified by demons to anyone like me who doesn’t believe in the reality of demons. Is that less obvious to you?

If we are going to discuss whether facts exist we need to avoid the mistake of saying that something isn’t a fact so long as someone disagrees that it is a fact. It is for example a fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, notwithstanding the denials of nut jobs who insist he was born in Kenya. The great weight of the evidence supports Obama's birth in Hawaii and that makes it as far as we can tell a fact.

Birthers don't agree about Obama and Mythers don't agree about Jesus.

Steve

You're going to have to provide some other evidence besides "tradition" that Jesus was crucified by the Romans... especially if you think that comparing the crucifixion of Jesus is comparable with the birth of Obama.

We have more than just "tradition" to conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The seems suficient evidence Obama WAS indeed born. The other one, not so much...

show_no_mercy · 11-17-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul is talking about the archons here, and counterpoints it with the angels - as opposed to "princes" in your other interpretations of his use of archons.

Paul isn't using the word "archon". He is using the word "arche", which means "beginning", "origin", and usually translated here as "principalities". What connection do you see between the word "arche" with the word "archon" and its meaning?

Αρχαι and αρχον both share the root of αρχ- which means to begin or to rule. Αρχαι is just plural feminine. Paul never uses a root word αρχ- for any beings that he likes. And in Rom 8 it makes no sense in its context to juxtapose "angels" with "princes" or "principalities". He's listing opposites; the opposite of angels would be demons. Just like the opposite of life is death.

You don't accept Ephesians as an authentic letter so this is probably an impasse.

Steven Carr · 11-17-2010, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The "Life of Tiberius" by Suetonius may be an example of the problems of working with Ancient Historians. Suetonius records large amounts of lurid material about what the elderly Tiberius got up to at Capri, with little indication of how he (Suetonius) knows about this. (It is most unlikely to have been recorded in public records.)

Andrew Criddle

'Mark' has lots of lurid detail about serving heads on dinner plates, after rash promises to give away half a kingdom.

Curiosly, both John the Baptist and Jesus had bits of their body presented at a meal, both killed by the authorities, and both had their bodies laid in a tomb by their followers, rather than disposed of by the authorities.

Both were then believed to have been raised from the dead.

2-J · 11-18-2010, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

To some extent this is bad practice by Ancient Historians, but sometimes there is no alternative. Using strict criteria of what counts as a primary source would make it impossible to write about a good deal of the Ancient World.

Of course there is an alternative. Of course there is. We can simply admit that we cannot write about such issues with confidence (or in extreme cases) we cannot write about such issues at all.

To say otherwise, that we have to lower our standards or we face the truly awful consequence that we can't say much about the Ancient World, surely commits a logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.