darstec

You mistakenly take something serious here for what was an inside joke or pun. The choice was between Joshua son of the father and Joshua son of the father.

According to the story they chose Joshua son of the father. Go figure! It is like giving you a choice of whether you want an apple for dessert or an apple for dessert. Which of the two would you choose if you had to make a choice?


Rulers of the era is not found in the gospels. Those writers moved the story or references have been edited out by Orthodoxy. Ample evidence is found in other writings of the second century when the epistles and gospels were written to substantiate that ruler, powers, principalities were levels of angelic beings, good or bad.

Things like this will alway occur when one is using a poor English translation instead of resorting to the original languages and having the entire spectrum of literature available.

Except that it is mentioned several times that we are all sons of god. Why the capitalization, anyway? Or did you consider that since Joshua himself never claimed to be the son of god in Mark's gospel, that the spirits were simply lying and trying to stir up trouble. If he were a special son of god, why didn't they fear him?

Besides don't you see the absurdity of the situation. How can spirits fall down. What language did they speak? If they weren't allowed to tell anyone, why would the disciples be allowed to say anything?

What makes you think the a son of god was anything special among the Archons here translated as rulers?

When dealing with this stuff you have to suspend reality just like you do when reading about Pecos Bill twisting the river.

mountainman

Perhaps if you were to ask your average Biblical Historian who were the "Rulers of this Age" at the epoch when the new testament writings were being authored and canonized then the average Biblical Historian will defer to the "spirit world". This adequately demonstrates the value of Biblical Historians to the field of ancient history.

However if you were to ask your average Ancient Historian who were the "Rulers of this Age" at the epoch when the new testament writings were being authored and canonized then the average Ancient Historian will defer to the Romans, and their large and well armed professional army, the Praetorian Guard and the "Lord God Caesar". This adequately demonstrates ancient historical reality.

The "Rulers of the Age" of (ahem) "Christian Origins" cannot be any others but the Romans and their rulers. To think otherwise is to do "Biblical History" and haven't we had enough of this bullshit yet? The available evidence strongly suggests that Biblical "history" itself has been fabricated under the despotic sponsorship of the "Rulers of the Age of Christian Origins".

Its all quite simple really - the Romans, who had been for centuries the professional "Rulers of the Age", published a "Holy Writ" for the Greeks which made their "Gnostic" religions redundant, yet at the same time retained the power and authority of the "Pontifex Maximimus". The Roman mission was to secure as much gold and silver and treasure and absolute power as possible in the shortest amount of time. This was needed to pay the army and its chiefs. The defence budget was the first order of priority. What's really changed?

jgreen44

Yes. A "Holy Writ" containing Gnostic ideas and imagery which Eusebius and the gang maintained were no longer and never had been Gnostic! But once upon a time a "ruler of the age" really was an archon. And a "son of god" really was any one of us.

mountainman

The gang used the Jews (via the codex technology of LXX and NT) as a scape goat. The "Judaic "partial asceticism" was raised in the public consciousness over and above the "full asceticism" of the Graeco-Roman "Gnostics". The Gnostics would no longer need their ancient and highly revered temples and temple practices and "priesthoods". The Greek "Gnosis" was very Buddha-like and shared the same precepts.

The logic of the Greek Gnostics (eg: Plotinus) is not substantially removed from the logic of the Buddhists -- we are each of us responsible for our own salvation and enlightenment in this fleeting thing we call life.

jgreen44

Such gnosis is not compatible with the idea that God appeared on earth one time only in the form of one particular man who forevermore could only be accessed only through the intermediaries appointed by the Church. I take that back. According to the Church, Paul enjoyed the distinction of being the first and last man to attain gnosis. He received his gospel from no man.

aa5874

You have mistakenly INVENTED the name Joshua for Barabbas. In the NT, his NAME was ONLY Barabbas, NOT Joshua Barabbas.

And AMUSINGLY, Joshua was the Child of the HOLY Ghost. See matthew 1.18

The choice was between the son of a man and the son of a ghost of God.

But, they REALLY had no choice.

Jesus, in the story, did blaspheme the name of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin. Jesus must die.

One of the rulers of that ERA was Tiberius mentioned in gLuke.


But, ALL the authors of the Gospels place the crucifixion of Jesus on earth during the reign of a ruler of that age called Tiberius when Pilate was governor.

According to ALL the Gospels, Pilate was the final arbiter on earth and he found no fault with Jesus but gave the Jews a choice.

No angels appeared at the trial to give evidence against Jesus according to the Gospels.

The Sanhedrin considered that Jesus was a man and that he was blasphemer and the rulers of that age, through Pilate, allowed Jesus to be executed because of the Jews.



Of course the Spirits feared Jesus in gMark.

Mark 3:11 -
Mark 5.6-8 But, the Jesus story is absurd. It must BE absurd to claim Jesus was crucified by Spiritual rulers in some heaven.

It was far less absurd to claim Jesus was crucified on earth under Pilate at least four authors claimed Jesus was on earth when he was crucified.

If Paul was the first to claim Jesus was crucified in heaven by "spritual rulers" then ALL FOUR Gospel writers MUST have REJECTED Paul's absurdity.

No way. You cannot suspend reality. You MUST state exactly what the author wrote.

The NT Canon and Church writings are about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the child of the Holy Ghost, Creator of heaven and earth who was God who walked on a sea or lake in Judea, and was transfigured on a mountain top, was crucified in Jerusalem under Pilate when the ruler of that age was Tiberius, was buried in a tomb in Judea and was raised from the dead and ascended through clouds possible over Judea.

No angels or spiritual rulers were NOTpresent at the crucifixion scene in the Jesus story. The spiritual rulers or angels were at the resurrection scene.

Let's not suspend reality.

Solo

I think that's exactly it: Paul (the genuine one, not the impostor in 1 Th 2:14-15) did not consider the crucifixion an act of "lawless men" (as the Jerusalem Jesus following evidently did, to wit: Acts 2:23). Paul held that the rulers were (legally) justified in crucifying Jesus, as I was surprised to discover. It was all a plan to fulfil the law in Jesus who was 'made sin although he knew no sin' (2 Cr 5:21). Paul taught that God made Jesus transgress the law to show that 'no one is justified before God by the law' (Gal 3:11). Jesus was killed by the law in order that those who walk according to the Spirit might be saved:
So, strange as it may seem to those who got the basics from Sunday school, Paul held that the condemnation of Jesus was [B]a just (!!!) legal requirement. And Paul meant it !

So, for Paul, Jesus paid the 'debt to God's law' by faithfully undergoing the ordeal of crucifixion...(though he knew no sin !), so it was extremely foolish for the Galatians to reject the cross as the symbol of messianic redemption.

If one reads the passages in Romans 13 and 1 Cor 2 with this in mind, there is no contradiction between them. Paul did not consider the rulers who crucified Jesus malevolent, only unwise, in that they did not perceive that the man was ....filled with God's glory and doing God's work.

Jiri

mountainman

Correct - such gnosis was not compatible with the orthodoxy of the books of the new testament as published by Constantine for and on behalf of his favorite church. But you will find such gnosis in the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" which were deemed heretical by the orthodox, which were searched out for destruction and which were sworn at by many of the offended orthodox bishops and emperors in the 4th and 5th and later centuries.


Its actually a little more complicated than that since both Paul and Pseudo Paul received their respective gospel from no man. I suspect the source was no man but rather a certain very late Lord God Caesar.

GakuseiDon

That's right. Just before 1 Cor 2, Paul develops the theme of man's wisdom, which neatly ties into his view in 1 Cor 2 about what is "coming to nothing":

I Cor 1:
[19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
[20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

These would appear to be human beings that Paul is referring to. I'm not aware that demons had scribes. It is human understanding that is being "brought to nothing." Paul continues:

[26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Again, these "wise men", "mighty" and "noble" appear to be human beings. Paul continues:

[27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
[28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
[29] That no flesh should glory in his presence. [30] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [31] That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

I can't imagine that "the base things of the world, and things which are despised" is anything other than the crucifixion, which is used to "bring things to nought".

Btw, I found an interesting old FRDB thread on this topic, referencing Ellingworth and Hatton's comment "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." It is about Doherty's use of sources, entitled "Selective quotation, misreadings, and misrepresentations of sources"

Jeffrey Gibson points out that in the second edition of E&H's handbook, they write: "Recent writers generally tend to think of human rulers, and these should certainly not be excluded in translation." That thread covers some of the things being discussed here.

Also, I'd still be interested if anyone has any ideas about this:

[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
[8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

If these are demons: Why would they have not crucified Christ if they had known God's plan? Paul writes as though Satan is still out there, causing problems. (The nearest thing I can think of is Ascension of Isaiah, which is a bit unclear.) I can understand what Paul meant if he thought these were human rulers, as per Solo's comments: the rulers were not evil, but misguided. If they had known, they wouldn't have crucified Christ. But demons??? Can anyone find anything within Paul that would be consistent with the idea that demons wouldn't have crucified Christ?

dog-on

Substitute demons for the demiurge and his forces, the rulers of the age.