Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:14 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:38 pm To Bernard & GakuseiDon

the evidence that "age" is the period of time from creation until to present times is the following:

I agree. I don't know why you keep thinking that if "rulers of this age" referred to humans, it must refer to Romans only. Remember, the Jews had been under attack from non-Jewish forces since the start of this age. "Rulers of this age" would refer to ALL human rulers. And for Paul, he probably added Jewish rulers in that mix as well, from the perspective of early Christianity.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:38 pmthe wisdom of this age is a human wisdom

Yes! The wisdom of this age is human wisdom. Not Roman only wisdom, but human wisdom. For example, Gentile philosophy.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:38 pm3) therefore: the wisdom "of the archontes of this age" is a not-human wisdom -----> the archontes are demons.

The "wisdom" may well be the wisdom of the supernatural, so 'demon' wisdom. But it doesn't mean the rulers themselves were supernatural.

If the 'wisdom of this age' is Gentile thinking (e.g. Greek philosophy), then what is the 'wisdom of the rulers of this age'? To me: it is prophecy. There are lots of ancient stories where Gentile rulers went to astrologers and magi to obtain knowledge of the future. If you read 1 Cor with that in mind, it makes sense. There is (a) God's wisdom, (b) human ("man's") wisdom, and (c) ruler's wisdom:

1 Cor 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, that come to nought:
2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the age unto our glory:
2:8 Which none of the rulers of this age knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

It seems to me that Paul is talking about what is going to happen in the future. That's a topic that the human rulers of his day would have wanted to know. Some would have indeed consulted supernatural forces, both bad and good, through pagan astrologers and Jewish prophets. So in a sense their 'wisdom' would have been thought to have been derived from the supernatural. But the wisdom was about the future. Only Paul had the inside track there!

Add to that that Paul says "we speak wisdom among them that are perfect". It seems an unlikely reading to me to think that Paul thought he had to tell fellow Christians not to listen to the demons who crucified Christ.

So Giuseppe: in your view, what exactly is the "wisdom of the rulers of this age" that Paul was referring to?

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:50 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:14 am So Giuseppe: in your view, what exactly is the "wisdom of the rulers of this age" that Paul was referring to?

The precious information Paul says us is that it (=the archontic wisdom) is not human wisdom (="wisdom of this age") therefore it is angelic wisdom. Since the angels in question are evil ones, then they are demons.

The prophecy can't be a such angelic wisdom because prophets are not angels. Paul is enough explicit to distinguish the two wisdoms in virtue of the only fact that one of them is an archontic (demonic) wisdom, differently from the other, which is only human.

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 3:01 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:14 am It seems to me that Paul is talking about what is going to happen in the future. That's a topic that the human rulers of his day would have wanted to know. Some would have indeed consulted supernatural forces, both bad and good, through pagan astrologers and Jewish prophets.

really do you think do? You should have a lot of imagination to think that Paul knew about someone as Herod going to consult the Magi to know about the star and the holy child. Occam prohibits.

I am sorry, GakuseiDo, but I would have expected (and I would continue to expect) by you the seren and frank acknowledgment that archontes are demons. οὐδέ doesn't allow alternatives. Sic et simpliciter.

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 3:06 am**

I had written:

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:46 pm WARNING: if you (Bernard or Ben Or GDon or DavidMartin) will reply by saying that the Roman CIA, the Roman FBI, the Roman KGB or the Roman Mossad could know things about Jesus that were unknown to the stupid hoi polloi, then I will call you all: fool apologists.

What can the reader think that I think about GakuseiDon, after his answer that human rulers wanted to know about Jesus by consulting astrologers and prophets? As if the wisdom of astrologers and false prophets was not human but sopranatural!

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 3:15 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:14 am
If the 'wisdom of this age' is Gentile thinking (e.g. Greek philosophy),

hence the wisdom of scribes and pharisees would be not human wisdom "of this age", too? Did scribes and pharisees consult demons to know in advance when the Son of God would be arrived? And if they did so, how can their information be named more precisely? Human wisdom (since it is now in their hands) or angelic wisdom (since the source of a such wisdom is angelic)?

But if the source of their wisdom is angelic, then the "wisdom of the archontes of this age" is stricto sensu angelic wisdom. Therefore archontes==evil angels, i.e. demons.

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:30 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:14 am Add to that that Paul says "we speak wisdom among them that are perfect". It seems an unlikely reading to me to think that Paul thought he had to tell fellow Christians not to listen to the demons who crucified Christ.

But Paul doesn't tell that. Where have you derived a similar bizarre idea? Paul is clear:

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age and not (οὐδέ) of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

(1 Cor 2:6)

Paul is saying that the Christian Perfects have to receive a hidden wisdom who is different from two different wisdoms:

1) human wisdom: the wisdom of this age

2) not-human wisdom: the wisdom of the rulers of this age

Only angels are not-human beings, and only demons are angels who can have the angelic wisdom Paul is alluding about behind the name of 'wisdom of the rulers of this age'. Hence the "rulers of this age" are only demons since their wisdom is not-human, according to Paul.

Now it is more and more clear why G. A.Wells wrote very wisely and humbly:

Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

(my bold)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:08 am**

SILENCE BY GAKUSEIDON AND BEN C. SMITH AND BERNARD MULLER.

A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE BY CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS?

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:37 am**

to Guiseppe,

SILENCE BY GAKUSEIDON AND BEN C. SMITH AND BERNARD MULLER.

A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE BY CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS?

I am not a Christian apologist, not even a Christian.
You wrote that early in the morning: do you think I don't have the right to sleep and should be on my computer all night in order to answer you posts, as soon as they come?

And you seem to have the narrow-minded notion if one is not a mythicist about Jesus, he has to be a Christian.

Cordially, Bernard

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:34 am**

to Giuseppe,

οὐδέ (from Homer down), a neg. disjunctive conjunction, compounded of οὐ and δέ, and therefore properly, equivalent to but not; generally, however, its oppositive force being lost, it serves to continue a negation. (On the elision of ἐ when the next word begins with a vowel (observed by Tdf. in eight instances, neglected in fifty-eight), see Tdf. Proleg., p. 96; cf. WHs Appendix, p. 146; Winers Grammar, § 5, 1 a.; Buttmann, p. 10f) It signifies:
1. and not, continuing a negation, yet differently from οὔτε; for the latter connects parts or members of the same thing, since τέ is adjunctive like the Latinque; but οὐδέ places side by side things that are equal and mutually exclude each other

(bolding mine)
This is from the Thayer Greek Lexicon. But after the last sentence a (?) was placed. Why?
From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3761&t=RSV (bolding mine)

οὐδέ (from Homer down), a neg. disjunctive conjunction, compounded of οὐ and δέ, and therefore properly, equivalent to but not; generally, however, its oppositive force being lost, it serves to continue a negation. (On the elision of ἐ when the next word begins with a vowel (observed by Tdf. in eight instances, neglected in fifty-eight), see Tdf. Proleg., p. 96; cf. WHs Appendix, p. 146; Winers Grammar, § 5, 1 a.; Buttmann, p. 10f) It signifies:
1. and not, continuing a negation, yet differently from οὔτε; for the latter connects parts or members of the same thing, since τέ is adjunctive like the Latin que; but οὐδέ places side by side things that are equal and mutually exclude each other ((?). There appears to be some mistake here in what is said about 'mutual exclusion' (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 55, 6): οὐδέ, like δέ, always makes reference to something preceding; οὔτε to what follows also; the connection of clauses made negative by οὔτε is close and internal, so that they are mutually complementary and combine into a unity, whereas clauses negatived by οὐδέ follow one another much more loosely, often almost by accident as it were; see Winer's Grammar, at the passage cited, and especially the quotations there given from Benfey and Klotz.) It differs from μηδέ as οὐ does from μή (which see ad at the beginning); after οὐ, where each has its own verb: Matthew 5:15 6:28; Mark 4:22; Luke 6:44; Acts 2:27; Acts 9:9; Acts 17:24; Galatians 1:17; Galatians 4:14; οὐκ οἶδα οὐδέ ἐπίσταμαι, Mark 14:68 R G L marginal reading (others, οὔτε... οὔτε) (Cicero, pro Rosc. American 43, non novi neque scio); cf. Winers Grammar, 490 (456) c.; (Buttmann, 367 (315) note); οὐ... οὐδέ... οὐδέ, not... nor... nor, Matthew 6:26; οὐδείς... οὐδέ... οὐδέ... οὐδέ, Revelation 5:3 (R G; cf. Buttmann, 367 (315); Winer's Grammar, 491 (457)); οὐ... οὐδέ; followed by a future... οὐδέ μή followed by subjunctive aorist... οὐδέ, Revelation 7:16. οὐ... οὐδέ, the same verb being common to both: Matthew 10:24; Matthew 25:13; Luke 6:43; Luke 8:17 (cf. Winers Grammar, 300 (281); Buttmann, 355 (305) cf. § 139, 7); John 6:24; John 13:16; Acts 8:21; Acts 16:21; Acts 24:18; Romans 2:28; Romans 9:16; Galatians 1:1; Galatians 3:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; 1 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 21:23. preceded by οὔπω, Mark 8:17; — by οὐδείς, Matthew 9:17; — by ἵνα μή, which is followed by οὐδέ... οὐδέ, where μηδέ... μηδέ might have been expected (cf. Buttmann, § 148, 8; (Winer's Grammar, 474 (442))) Revelation 9:4. οὐδέ γάρ, for neither, John 8:42; Romans 8:7.
2. also not (A. V. generally neither): Matthew 6:15; Matthew 21:27; Matthew 25:45; Mark 11:26 (R L); Luke 16:31; John 15:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 11:21; 1 Corinthians 15:13, 16; Galatians 1:12 (οὐδέ γάρ ἐγώ (cf. Buttmann, 367 (315) note; 492 (458))); Hebrews 8:4, etc.; ἀλλ' οὐδέ, Luke 23:15; ἤ οὐδέ, in a question, or doth not even etc.? 1 Corinthians 11:14 Rec.; the simple οὐδέ, num ne quidem (have ye not even etc.) in a question where a negative answer is assumed (see οὐ, 7): Mark 12:10; Luke 6:3; Luke 23:40; and G L T Tr WH in 1 Corinthians 11:14.
3. not even (Buttmann, 369 (316)): Matthew 6:29; Matthew 8:10; Mark 6:31; Luke 7:9; Luke 12:27; John 21:25 (Tdf. omits the verse); 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 14:21; οὐδέ εἷς (Winers Grammar, 173 (163); Buttmann, § 127, 32), Acts 4:32; Romans 3:10; 1 Corinthians 6:5 (L T Tr WH οὐδείς); οὐδέ ἕν, John 1:3; ἀλλ' οὐδέ, Acts 19:2; 1 Corinthians 3:2 (Rec. ἀλλ' οὔτε); 1 Corinthians 4:3; Galatians 2:3. in a double negative for the sake of emphasis, οὐκ... οὐδέ (Buttmann, 369 (316); Winer's Grammar, 500 (465)): Matthew 27:14; Luke 18:13; Acts 7:5.

So your "mutually exclude each other" is highly contestable.

Cordially, Bernard

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:56 am**

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:34 amThis is from the Thayer Greek Lexicon. But after the last sentence a (?) was placed. Why?
From https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3761&t=RSV (bolding mine)
οὐδέ (from Homer down), a neg. disjunctive conjunction, compounded of οὐ and δέ, and therefore properly, equivalent to but not; generally, however, its oppositive force being lost, it serves to continue a negation. (On the elision of ἐ when the next word begins with a vowel (observed by Tdf. in eight instances, neglected in fifty-eight), see Tdf. Proleg., p. 96; cf. WHs Appendix, p. 146; Winers Grammar, § 5, 1 a.; Buttmann, p. 10f) It signifies:
1. and not, continuing a negation, yet differently from οὔτε; for the latter connects parts or members of the same thing, since τέ is adjunctive like the Latin que; but οὐδέ places side by side things that are equal and mutually exclude each other ((?). There appears to be some mistake here in what is said about 'mutual exclusion' (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 55, 6): οὐδέ, like δέ, always makes reference to something preceding; οὔτε to what follows also; the connection of clauses made negative by οὔτε is close and internal, so that they are mutually complementary and combine into a unity, whereas clauses negatived by οὐδέ follow one another much more loosely, often almost by accident as it were; see Winer's Grammar, at the passage cited, and especially the quotations there given from Benfey and Klotz.) It differs from μηδέ as οὐ does from μή (which see ad at the beginning); after οὐ, where each has its own verb: Matthew 5:15 6:28; Mark 4:22; Luke 6:44; Acts 2:27; Acts 9:9; Acts 17:24; Galatians 1:17; Galatians 4:14; οὐκ οἶδα οὐδέ ἐπίσταμαι, Mark 14:68 R G L marginal reading (others, οὔτε... οὔτε) (Cicero, pro Rosc. American 43, non novi neque scio); cf. Winers Grammar, 490 (456) c.; (Buttmann, 367 (315) note); οὐ... οὐδέ... οὐδέ, not... nor... nor, Matthew 6:26; οὐδείς... οὐδέ... οὐδέ... οὐδέ, Revelation 5:3 (R G; cf. Buttmann, 367 (315); Winer's Grammar, 491 (457)); οὐ... οὐδέ; followed by a future... οὐδέ μή followed by subjunctive aorist... οὐδέ, Revelation 7:16. οὐ... οὐδέ, the same verb being common to both: Matthew 10:24; Matthew 25:13; Luke 6:43; Luke 8:17 (cf. Winers Grammar, 300 (281); Buttmann, 355 (305) cf. § 139, 7); John 6:24; John 13:16; Acts 8:21; Acts 16:21; Acts 24:18; Romans 2:28; Romans 9:16; Galatians 1:1; Galatians 3:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; 1 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 21:23. preceded by οὔπω, Mark 8:17; — by οὐδείς, Matthew 9:17; — by ἵνα μή, which is followed by οὐδέ... οὐδέ, where μηδέ... μηδέ might have been expected (cf. Buttmann, § 148, 8; (Winer's Grammar, 474 (442))) Revelation 9:4. οὐδέ γάρ, for neither, John 8:42; Romans 8:7.
2. also not (A. V. generally neither): Matthew 6:15; Matthew 21:27; Matthew 25:45; Mark 11:26 (R L); Luke 16:31; John 15:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 11:21; 1 Corinthians 15:13, 16; Galatians 1:12 (οὐδέ γάρ ἐγώ (cf. Buttmann, 367 (315) note; 492 (458))); Hebrews 8:4, etc.; ἀλλ' οὐδέ, Luke 23:15; ἤ οὐδέ, in a question, or doth not even etc.? 1 Corinthians 11:14 Rec.; the simple οὐδέ, num ne quidem (have ye not even etc.) in a question where a negative answer is assumed (see οὐ, 7): Mark 12:10; Luke 6:3; Luke 23:40; and G L T Tr WH in 1 Corinthians 11:14.
3. not even (Buttmann, 369 (316)): Matthew 6:29; Matthew 8:10; Mark 6:31; Luke 7:9; Luke 12:27; John 21:25 (Tdf. omits the verse); 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 14:21; οὐδέ εἷς (Winers Grammar, 173 (163); Buttmann, § 127, 32), Acts 4:32; Romans 3:10; 1 Corinthians 6:5 (L T Tr WH οὐδείς); οὐδέ ἕν, John 1:3; ἀλλ' οὐδέ, Acts 19:2; 1 Corinthians 3:2 (Rec. ἀλλ' οὔτε); 1 Corinthians 4:3; Galatians 2:3. in a double negative for the sake of emphasis, οὐκ... οὐδέ (Buttmann, 369 (316); Winer's Grammar, 500 (465)): Matthew 27:14; Luke 18:13; Acts 7:5.
So your "mutually exclude each other" is highly contestable.

Thayer's lexicon is built atop one compiled by Carl Grimm, which in turn took off from one compiled by Christian Wilke. The original lexical entry (which starts toward the bottom of column 2) is by Grimm. The brackets (which digital versions unhelpfully tend to turn into parentheses for some reason) enclose additional comments by Thayer himself, in this case correcting Grimm's comment. Thayer's correction ("there appears to be some mistake here") is correct and necessary; Grimm's comment ("οὐδέ places side by side things that are equal and mutually exclude each other") is incorrect. The real distinction is that οὔτε coordinates an item as parallel in some way to the next item in order whereas οὐδέ merely adds an item to the list.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space

Re: Jesus from Outer Space