Where is the more strong evidence in Paul pointing to an outer space Jesus

[archibald]

I am slightly skeptical. I believe a reasonable case can be made that Paul was profoundly at odds with the 'Jerusalem gang' rather than working along with them.

Those are details of no importance.

That seems a very odd thing to say.

Apparently " sceptic" describes one who believes in some God and also believes that Jesus never existed -- possibly, as revealed by his/her God .

Sorry, I'm not following what you mean there.

[archibald]

As prof Wells remembered again and again against his critics, his Argument from Silence is based on Paul + Hebrews + Revelation + Odes of Solomon, and not only on Paul.

Yes, but are there not also later texts as well? Well after the gospels are deemed to have arrived? I would need to check, but as far as I know, we could include texts up to the late 2nd C, and possibly beyond.

[iskander]

I am slightly skeptical. I believe a reasonable case can be made that Paul was profoundly at odds with the 'Jerusalem gang' rather than working along with them.

Those are details of no importance.

That seems a very odd thing to say.

Apparently " sceptic" describes one who believes in some God and also believes that Jesus never existed -- possibly, as revealed by his/her God .

Sorry, I'm not following what you mean there.

Not for a man to whom God has communicated a knowledge beyond the reach of reason.

It was a joke based on this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3762&start=10#p80280

[archibald]

Not for a man to whom God has communicated a knowledge beyond the reach of reason.

It was a joke based on this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3762&start=10#p80280

Ok....I get it....I think.

The second bit.

Kapyong.

I'm not of that ilk.

Still not sure how antagonism by Paul towards the prior Judean followers would not matter.

[iskander]

Not for a man to whom God has communicated a knowledge beyond the reach of reason.

It was a joke based on this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3762&start=10#p80280

Ok....I get it....I think.

The second bit.

Kapyong.

I'm not of that ilk.

Still not sure how antagonism by Paul towards the prior Judean followers would not matter.

Peter and Paul


Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office...
We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm
Exsurge Domine
Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X - 1520

[archibald]

Peter and Paul


Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office...
We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm
Exsurge Domine
Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X - 1520

Um.......1520 CE.

Am I to take it that you are being humourous again?

I think maybe I should.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Ooops... wrong thread

or as my sainted mother would say, "right church, wrong pew."

[GakuseiDon]

How does the "wisdom of this age" differ from the "wisdom of the rulers of this age"?

One has the word rulers in it and the other doesn't.

What I mean is, why do we need to think the wisdom refers to two different wisdoms by two different groups, one earthly and the other not, when rulers could easily be earthly rulers?

I think it definitely refers to two different wisdoms by two different non-Christian groups, from what Paul writes:

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

Paul explains what the wisdom he is preaching is in the next verse:

1 Cor 2:7 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.

I'm assuming the mystery is God sending Christ for crucifixion at the end of the age for the redemption of Jews and Gentiles, bringing about a new age, where the current rulers (both earthly and supernatural) will no longer rule But for Paul, Satan (and presumably the demons) are still active, despite Christ being resurrected. Are they still unaware that Christ has been raised, and so the jig is up? Perhaps they think there is still a chance to upset God's plan. But if so, why wouldn't they have crucified Christ if they had 'known' crucifying him would bring about their end, if it didn't work out that way? The only answer can be: the rulers (either human or celestial) didn't know, and STILL don't know. But most early Christian texts stress how Christ's descent was hidden from the heavens, while his ascent was not.

What I'm trying to do, as I always do (and most of the people on this board do as well I'm sure), is get behind the eyes of the writers of that time, try to understand things from their perspective. There is no doubt that they understood that they were surrounded by supernatural beings, with those beings ruling countries indirectly through humans. Paul saw his struggles with preaching his gospel as both against people and against supernatural creatures. The human rulers 'took advice' from the demons (from a Christian perspective) through augers and oracles, so it is easy enough to think that Paul saw demonic forces as acting through human rulers. But it just doesn't seem necessary to me to have Paul mean demonic forces there. And if it isn't necessary, chop it out!

Anyway, I'll stop rambling here. I'm happy to admit that, on this point I am very biased!

[Ben C. Smith]

I'm assuming the mystery is God sending Christ for crucifixion at the end of the age for the redemption of Jews and Gentiles, bringing about a new age, where the current rulers (both earthly and supernatural) will no longer rule But for Paul, Satan (and presumably the demons) are still active, despite Christ being resurrected. Are they still unaware that Christ has been raised, and so the jig is up? Perhaps they think there is still a chance to upset God's plan. But if so, why wouldn't they have crucified Christ if they had 'known' crucifying him would bring about their end, if it didn't work out that way? The only answer can be: the rulers (either human or celestial) didn't know, and STILL don't know.

Are you sure? Matthew for one seems to think that demons knew "the jig was up" even before the crucifixion:

Matthew 8.29: And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"

Or do you read this verse differently?

I recall hearing miniature, low-key debates in the churches I was brought up concerning this very point: did Satan know that his doom was certain, or did he think he still had a chance? Opinion was, as I recall, divided, with those who thought that Satan knew his days were numbered sometimes suggesting that his current vendetta against humanity, far from being a bid to avoid his fate, was simply a lashing out from pure hatred and rage. Perhaps opinion was divided already in century I.

[GakuseiDon]

The game has shifted. Now it is not the "wisdom of men" which is squarely in focus, but rather the "wisdom of this age." Why is that? I asked you this before in a different form. The people who crucified Jesus are humans, too, despite being rulers; so why not stick with the "wisdom of men" on that side of the contrast? Why speak now of the "wisdom of this age" instead?

I think I've answered this just above in my response to archibald. It relates to wisdom of future events, which human rulers were interested in. Christian wisdom comes as a mystery from God, with knowing God sending Christ at the end (or near the end) of the age. Anyway, you continue:

I think that what Paul is doing here is introducing a contrast between two different kinds of spirit. There are the spirits under Satan, who rules this present age, and then there is the spirit of God, who is going to rule the age to come. Paul does not want merely to suggest that the Corinthians are indulging in human wisdom; he wants to suggest that they are actually flirting with demonic wisdom, and he does this by lumping human wisdom together with demonic wisdom; they are one and the same (precisely because Satan and his demons rule the present age and most humans do not resist their influence). When Paul avers that he is not speaking with the "wisdom of this age," it is not to justify himself but rather to implicate the Corinthians! (Notably, he cautions them against participating with demons in 1 Corinthians 10.20, as well.)

So now the wisdom of humans is linked to the "rulers of this age," who are spiritual powers. Here comes the payoff:

1 Corinthians 2.10-13: 10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

This is why Paul could not stick with mere human wisdom as the Corinthians' main shortcoming. He wanted to contrast two different spirits and connect them to the wrong one. His point is that human wisdom is actually beholden to spiritual forces that oppose God.

Yes, I don't think I disagree with this. I have "wisdom of this age" to be Greek philosophy, but it could also be the common usage of magic and charms and other uses of supernatural forces of the time.

I'd like to ask you, and everyone on any side of this debate: What do you think the following two points refer to:

(1) Wisdom of this age -- human wisdom?
(2) Wisdom of the rulers of this age -- non-human wisdom?

How does the "wisdom of this age" differ from the "wisdom of the rulers of this age"?

As suggested above, they are one and the same. The "wisdom of the rulers of this age" is a spirituality which is opposed to the wisdom of God, and it is what "the wisdom of this age" and "the wisdom of men" will always be so long as the ruler(s) of this age is/are Satan and his minions. Paul wished to bring in these "rulers" precisely in order to suggest that his Corinthians are starting to follow them instead of God; they are no better than those whom the Qumran sect condemned as humans "over whom the spirits of Belial dominate."

I may be mistaken about all of this. It is hardly the only way to read the passage; and, as I intimated before, I really do like your reading with Psalm 2.2 in the mix. But I find that the phrase "rulers of this age" lines up very well with "the god of this age" and "the ruler of this world" and "Belial and his spirits" or "all the angels of his dominion." And I think that the "spirit of the world" has more impact in verse 12 if it is referring back to demonic forces condemned as having crucified the Lord of glory.

I appreciate your always excellent and well-thought out comments in all your posts here, Ben! I'll have to do some thinking here. Thanks for that.