Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by outhouse »

iskander wrote:
Doherty is irrelevant to the meaning of gal 3:1 as in this thread

.

Doherty is irrelevant to the origin of Christianity. He did what he did, he is done doing things, and what he did in his whole life's work failed being so far out of context, it never gained any traction what so ever. It was a complete perversion of Pauline studies, which has a wide birth of study.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by Peter Kirby »

iskander wrote:
robert j wrote:
iskander wrote:Where is the crucifixion of Jesus found in the ancient scriptures?
Do you really have to ask that? I’m not going to spend much time here, except to provide a few examples of what could fill a large volume.

Using Deuteronomy 21:23 ---
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it has been written: "Cursed is everyone hanging on a tree" (Galatians 3:13)


… that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3)

The author of gMark, by the necessity of his tale of a recent Jesus, had to treat the scriptural passages as predictions, as prophesies. Just one example from gMark is his use Psalm 22 to help construct his passion narrative.

And gJohn using Zechariah 12:10 (Masoretic), also as a prophesy ---
And again, another Scripture says: "They will look on the One they have pierced." (John 19:37)

Even Acts reveals scriptural dependence ---
According to Paul’s custom, he went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and setting forth that it was necessary for the Christ to have suffered and to have risen from the dead, and (saying) that this Jesus whom I proclaim to you is the Christ.” (Acts 17:2-3)

There is nearly an endless well of examples to provide, but I suspect you might dismiss each outright or argue they are indeed, in reality, scriptural predictions of future events of Jesus. Fine, that is a popular solution.

As I have cited before, for the most part, I agree with this statement from Earl Doherty ---
“Scripture did not contain any full-blown crucified Messiah, but it did contain all the required ingredients. Jewish midrash was the process by which the Christian recipe was put together and baked into the doctrine ….” (Doherty, Earl, Jesus Neither God Nor Man, 2009, p. 87).
Are those examples of ancient scriptures? The OT may be interpreted in a creative manner ...
That's the only relevant thing here. It can be, and it was.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by Peter Kirby »

outhouse wrote:... It was a complete perversion of Pauline studies ...
Earl Doherty offered a refreshing take on the letters of Paul that took seriously several facets of the text that otherwise get swept under the rug. He wasn't the first to come to similar conclusions on the matter, and neither will he be the last.

Your outbursts on the forum prove only that you dislike ambiguity and want there to be good guys and bad guys here.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by iskander »

Peter Kirby wrote:,,,
That's the only relevant thing here. It can be, and it was.
What did Paul intend to say in Gal 3:1 ?
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote:
iskander wrote:
Doherty is irrelevant to the meaning of gal 3:1 as in this thread

.

Doherty is irrelevant to the origin of Christianity. He did what he did, he is done doing things, and what he did in his whole life's work failed being so far out of context, it never gained any traction what so ever. It was a complete perversion of Pauline studies, which has a wide birth of study.
I don't know much about Mr Doherty. Some years ago I bought his book , neither man nor god, but I could not be interested enough to finish it. I have given the book away.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote:
outhouse wrote:
iskander wrote:
Doherty is irrelevant to the meaning of gal 3:1 as in this thread

.

Doherty is irrelevant to the origin of Christianity. He did what he did, he is done doing things, and what he did in his whole life's work failed being so far out of context, it never gained any traction what so ever. It was a complete perversion of Pauline studies, which has a wide birth of study.
I don't know much about Mr Doherty. Some years ago I bought his book , neither man nor god, but I could not be interested enough to finish it. I have given the book away.
I have always respected honest work

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/for ... .html?f=60
Roo Bookaroo was questioning the contribution of Mr. Doherty on this thread
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 16&page=56
My contribution was to equal Luther and Doherty as luther replied to Erasmus
Luther response to Erasmus
De Servo Arbitrio
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.html
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...r_arbitrio.pdf
Exordium
Quote:
For you [Erasmus] say—'so great a number of the most learned men, approved by the consent of so many ages, has no little weight with you. Among whom were, some of the most extensively acquainted with the sacred writings, and also some of the most holy martyrs, many renowned for miracles, together with the more recent theologians, and so many colleges, councils, bishops, and popes: so that, in a word, on your side of the balance are (you say) learning, genius, multitude, greatness, highness, fortitude, sanctity, miracles, and what not!—But that, on my side, are only a Wycliffe and a Laurentius Valla... who in comparison with the others, are of no weight whatever; that Luther, therefore, stands alone, a private individual, an upstart, with his followers, in whom there is neither that learning nor that genius, nor multitude, nor magnitude, nor sanctity, nor miracles. But these things have no effect upon us, for we say to you, as the wolf did to the nightingale, which he devoured,

I confess, my friend Erasmus, that you may well be swayed by all these. These had such weight with me for upwards of ten years, that I think no other mortal was ever so much under their sway. And I myself thought it incredible that this Troy of ours, which had for so long a time, and through so many wars stood invincible, could ever be taken. And I call God for a record upon my soul, that I should have continued so, and have been under the same influence even unto this day, had not an urging conscience and an evidence of things, forced me into a different path.... But this is not a time for setting forth a history of my own life or works; nor have I undertaken this discussion for the purpose of commending myself

We (Luther) will grant, therefore, that we are private individuals and few, and you( Erasmus) public characters and many; we ignorant, and you the most learned: we stupid, and you the most acute: we creatures of yesterday, and you older than Deucalion; we never received, and you approved by so many ages; in a word, we sinners, carnal, and dolts, and you awe-striking to the very devils for your sanctity, spirit, and miracles.- Yet allow us the right to ask of you that reason for your doctrine, which your favourite Peter has commanded you to give. We ask it of you in the most modest way


Roo was saying that academia was against Doherty and I pointed out that academia was also against the Mighty Luther!
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by iskander »

I have always respected honest work
on page 53 number 527
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 16&page=53
Is this wiki article the one you have written?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christ_Myth


A description of the work Mr. Earl Doherty ought to have been included in this article. Mr. Doherty is one of the leading biblical scholars and it is important that this regrettable omission be corrected
On page 54, number 540
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 16&page=54

Originally Posted by tanya
Thanks for the link, Iskander
I see that you are a person of lofty thoughts for whom only the highest standards are acceptable.I feel like the youngster brought down to earth by connoisseurs with the remark, ’how can you praise that one, you who has never dated a Sheila’.


Should someone who has written books on an esoteric subject, delivered lectures, written articles and like Paul discussed the same unfathomable subject with cross-eyed –curved-fingered lovers of Sheila, should this one pioneer not be included in the list of contemporary inhabitants of same labyrinth?
Last edited by iskander on Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by spin »

robert j wrote:Galatians 3:1 ---

οἷς κατ' ὀφθαλμοὺς
before whose eyes

Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
Jesus Christ

προεγράφη
was written in the past

ἐσταυρωμένος;
having been crucified

...

For me, Paul’s use of the very same term (προεγράφη) in Romans 15:4 is the best evidence we have.
Personally, I doubt that Paul wrote Romans 15:4 (or Rom 15-16, given the fluidity of the doxology now at the end of the book), but it is interesting how every translation I've looked at for the verse goes beyond the source text, adding things like "aforetime", "in the past", "long ago", "in former times", etc. (It doesn't appear to be in the Greek text, so why is it there in English? It is not contained in the verb.)

If one looks at Appian Bk 1 Ch 3 Paras 23 & 24 (Gr & Eng), the verb προγραφω is translated in §23 as "give public notice" (presumably written), but with a currency to the act , and §24 as "summoned" (or "called", "proclaimed", etc, again presumably written notification). There is no reason to consider from this verb the notion of "long ago". There is reason to consider that the act is a public communication. This is consistent with Josephus AJ 12.33 (or 12.2.4 end), where the verb is translated by Ralph Marcus as "announced", the Ptolemid king announced a decision, once again a written notice? I presume that each is written, though is it necessary? In Plutarch's Lysander 30, we are told "Spartan... they summoned (προγραψαι) the king", yet in none of these examples is the act of writing at all relevant to the context. In each case we have a public communications. In Plutarch's Aemilius Paulus 38, when Marcus Aemilius Ledipus was declared (προεγραψε) first senator, it is hard to imagine that Plutarch was thinking about any writing.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by robert j »

From another thread about Galatians 3:1 ---
spin wrote:Jesus, what a trainwreck this thread seems to be. The o.p. hangs on the misunderstood significance of the verb προγραφω. Look at the word. Can you see γραφω in there? You know, to do with writing (as in "graphology")? "Set down in writing". Even the etymology of "proscribe" hints at the significance.

Paul had apparently sent these Galatians letters that told them of the crucifixion. You saw the letters with your own eyes and heard them read....

There is no notion of having seen Jesus crucified in Galatia, only having seen what had been set down in writing.
Here you characterize the term as referring to something written in the past.

While it's certainly possible that this written material was something Paul had written, perhaps part of one of his other letters. However, with Paul's predilection for using the Jewish scriptures to support his positions (such as Galatians 3:13), I think it's more likely that the written material that Paul was referring to in Galatians 3:1 was the scriptures.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by iskander »

In Gal 3:1 Paul is alluding to something that has taken place in the past. He is alluding to something the audience had witnessed with their own eyes. He may had , in a previous visit, delivered a long exhausting lecture and left with them helpful written notes .

In Gal 3 :13 he is making a formal citation of a legal document that had been in circulation from ancient times.

I like the commentary of Martin Luther of 1535.
Post Reply