Jesus from Outer Space

[Giuseppe]

1 Peter 2.22: 22 ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ.

Not to sin and not to have deceit in one's mouth seem to overlap, as well.

Of grace, how can you say this, when the text reads:

1 Peter 2:22

He committed no sin, not even deceit was found in his mouth.”

the "deceit" is not the same thing as "sin". You have no right to eclipse the difference between "deceit" and "sin". Just as you have no right to eclipse the difference between the "wisdom of this age" and the archontic wisdom. The latter is not the same wisdom as the former, therefore the archontes are not humans.

Wells was right:

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

[Giuseppe]

(Ignoring christian apologists who don't answer my questions) another strong reason to deny that the archontes are humans:

In all the Pauline epistles, it is not characterictic of earthly rulers to dispense wisdom.

According to Romans 13:1-7, the earthly rulers dispense justice, not wisdom.

Add this to the fact that the opposed is true (it is characteristic of humans "of this age" to dispense wisdom: only read 1 Corinthians 1) and you have a strong and clear contrast between the human "wisdom of this age" and the supernatural "wisdom of the rulers of this age".

Only anti-divine angels could have a supernatural wisdom and only they could dispense it.

[Giuseppe]

EVIDENCE that the Pagan Gods are demons for Paul:

Anyone who does not know God is simply foolish. Such people look at the good things around them and still fail to see the living God. They have studied the things he made, but they have not recognized the one who made them.

Instead, they suppose that the gods who rule the world are fire or wind or storm or the circling stars or rushing water or the heavenly bodies.

(Wisdom 13:1-2)

Add to this the condemnation of the stoicheia in Galatians, and the proof is done.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe and Ben (for meaning of οὐ),

no, I think that it is very probable that οὐδὲ means here "not even", so the Pauline wisdom is not part of the human wisdom and not even of the angelic wisdom. You are obliged to assume two distinct wisdoms since οὐδὲ means very probably here "not even".

No, it is not very probable, not even probable (see my previous posts).

If Paul wanted to say your point, he would have used only οὐ and not οὐδὲ, which gives the phrase the sense of a crescendo in terms of levels of wisdom, as for example in the expression:

What does οὐ means? Does that word even exist (my Google Translate has no English equivalent). I hope that Ben can clarify that.

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.

Wells naively thought that archontes can only mean supernatual forces, when in the NT, most of the time (and even in Paul's Romans 12:1-7), these archontes are human rulers.

According to Romans 13:1-7, the earthly rulers dispense justice, not wisdom.

Add this to the fact that the opposed is true (it is characteristic of humans "of this age" to dispense wisdom: only read 1 Corinthians 1) and you have a strong and clear contrast between the human "wisdom of this age" and the supernatural "wisdom of the rulers of this age".

No, there is nothing like that in 1 Co 1. Certainly no contrast between the human "wisdom of this age" and the supernatural "wisdom of the rulers of this age". "Rulers" are not even mentioned.
The contrast is about God's wisdom and the prevailing human wisdom.
1 Co 1:20b-21a ... Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, ...

I don't see in 1 Co 1 where human "of this age" are dispensing wisdom.

EVIDENCE that the Pagan Gods are demons for Paul:

Anyone who does not know God is simply foolish. Such people look at the good things around them and still fail to see the living God. They have studied the things he made, but they have not recognized the one who made them.

Instead, they suppose that the gods who rule the world are fire or wind or storm or the circling stars or rushing water or the heavenly bodies.

(Wisdom 13:1-2)

This is not from Paul's writings, So what is the relevance?

Add to this the condemnation of the stoicheia in Galatians, and the proof is done

I already explained what "elements" meant for Celtic Galatians and it is not supernatural heavenly beings.

It looks to me you are constantly recycling your very biased interpretations despite the facts I fully destroyed them.

And NO, the stoicheia in Galatians and some verses from Wisdom of Solomon (not even an OT text) are not proof.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

What does οὐ means? Does that word even exist (my Google Translate has no English equivalent). I hope that Ben can clarify that.

Greek οὐ means "no," "not," or the negation of something. (LSJ.) Adding δέ to it to make οὐδέ creates a negating conjunction, "and not" or "but not" or the like; now the force of the οὐ can negate each item marked with οὐδέ on the list.

There is no grammatical argument to be made from the word οὐδέ in 1 Corinthians 2.6 as concerns a comparison between the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of the rulers of this age. All the οὐ + οὐδέ means is that both have been negated; it suggests nothing as to the meaning, identity, or character of either item.

ETA: Corrected link.

[Bernard Muller]

Thank you Ben.
to Giuseppe,
so with οὐ meaning not, we would have for 1 Co 2:6: however, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, not of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
Even so, I don't see why Paul would mean the wisdom of this age is not the same as the wisdom of the rulers of this age.

Note: Paul brought the archontes into play in 1 Co 2:6, because they are the ones who crucified Jesus (in 1 Co 2:8).

The same for 1 Co 11:16: "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, not the churches of God."

About your critique of Ben's quote of 1 Thessalonians 2:3. As for his other quotes, Ben was only illustrating what he concluded:

The items on a list demarcated by οὐδέ can be any items which the author wishes to negate all in a row for any reason he or she may have.

However, for 1 Co 2:6 and 1 Co 11:16, what precedes οὐδὲ is a current fact ("the wisdom of this age" & "no such custom") and what follows is a collectivity of beings. The simplest explanation is: the collectivities share the fact (as I demonstrated clearly for 1 Co 11:16). And not about adding another fact.

What about "not even" instead of "nor"?
1 Co 2:6: however, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not [οὐ] the wisdom of this age, not even of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
1 Co 11:16: "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, not even the churches of God."

In 1 Co 2:6, "not even" can be misleading and likely not a good translation: the Thatcher' Greek Lexicon indicates that "and not" or "nor" is the proper translation for οὐ... οὐδέ.. (not... nor...). See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3761&t=KJV in the section "1. and not, continuing a negation"

For 1 Co 11:16, "not even" does not change anything from "nor".

A reminder: If Paul wanted to make a distinction between the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of these archontes, he would have written something like:
1 Co 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, and not THE ONE of the rulers [archontes] of this age, who are coming to nothing.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Thank you Ben.
to Giuseppe,
so with οὐ meaning not, we would have for 1 Co 2:6: however, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, not of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
Even so, I don't see why Paul would mean the wisdom of this age is not the same as the wisdom of the rulers of this age.

you and Ben are wrong. I read from here:

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
but not, neither, nor, not even

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
οὐδέ oudé, oo-deh'; from G3756 and G1161; not however, i.e. neither, nor, not even:—neither (indeed), never, no (more, nor, not), nor (yet), (also, even, then) not (even, so much as), + nothing, so much as.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... ongs=g3761

It is evident that, given the context, Paul is going to raise a crescendo. As I show in this image:



the hidden wisdom is so well hidden that NOT EVEN the supernatural rulers could know it.

Hence I insist: the immediate context requires the meaning of "NOT EVEN" for οὐδέ.

Ben C. Smith is particularly wrong when he writes:

There is no grammatical argument to be made from the word οὐδέ in 1 Corinthians 2.6 as concerns a comparison between the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of the rulers of this age. All the οὐ + οὐδέ means is that both have been negated; it suggests nothing as to the meaning, identity, or character of either item.

He can't eclipse/mitigate the difference between οὐ and οὐδέ. If I say that "Bernard is not correct and not even Ben is correct", I am assuming a priori that Ben has more probability than Bernard to be correct and despite of it he is wrong, too.

Idem in Paul: if he says that this age doesn't know the hidden wisdom and not even the rulers could know it, then the archontic wisdom is greater than the "wisdom of this age" and therefore distinct from the latter.

I don't see in 1 Co 1 where human "of this age" are dispensing wisdom.

Please don't be obtuse, here. GakuseiDon has already conceded me that the wisdom of this age includes also the Greek philosophy, obviously a wisdom who is DISPENSED to humans. Without disturbing the Greek philosophers, note that the stoicheia in Galatians are portrayed in the act of giving the Law to Judaizers, hence they are dispensing information. At contrary, your ROMAN archontes of Romans 13:1-7 can only dispense JUSTICE, not wisdom.

In addition, I have never seen a human person "who rules the time" (sic), but I can well imagine the God of Time, Chronos.
This to say that the mere name "rulers of this age" is sufficient to make my case, and to give me the right to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty if you disagree with me about this point.

[Giuseppe]

What does οὐ means? Does that word even exist (my Google Translate has no English equivalent). I hope that Ben can clarify that.

Greek οὐ means "no," "not," or the negation of something. (LSJ.) Adding δέ to it to make οὐδέ creates a negating conjunction, "and not" or "but not" or the like; now the force of the οὐ can negate each item marked with οὐδέ on the list.

There is no grammatical argument to be made from the word οὐδέ in 1 Corinthians 2.6 as concerns a comparison between the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of the rulers of this age. All the οὐ + οὐδέ means is that both have been negated; it suggests nothing as to the meaning, identity, or character of either item.

tsk, tsk. You are completely wrong here. According to Ben C. Smith, then, Mark 14:68:

ὁ δὲ ἠρνήσατο λέγων· Οὐκ οἶδα οὐδὲ ἐπίσταμαι τί σὺ λέγεις. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω εἰς τὸ προαύλιον, καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε.

...has to be not translated so:

But he denied, saying, I know not, not even understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

...but so:

But he denied, saying, I know not, and not understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

...when even a blind realizes that the act of understanding includes the act of knowing but can't be reduced to mere act of knowing: one can know X without understand X, while who understands X obviously has to know X before.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

you and Ben are wrong. I read from here:

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
but not, neither, nor, not even

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
οὐδέ oudé, oo-deh'; from G3756 and G1161; not however, i.e. neither, nor, not even:—neither (indeed), never, no (more, nor, not), nor (yet), (also, even, then) not (even, so much as), + nothing, so much as.

What credentials do you have that Ben is wrong on matter or translation from koine Greek?
Further, Strong's definitions are not interchangeable for each cases:

The Strong's Concordance is a helpful tool that lists every Hebrew and Greek lemma (root word) present in the King James Bible. Along with listing these, the tool also generally gives a 'gloss' for each word (some tools actually link Strong's Concordance to lexicons such as Thayer's Greek-English lexicon). The tool is popular because it is free on many Bible-related websites. With that said, I'd like to give some advice (and caution) to users who rely on this tool for original languages research in the Biblical texts.
...
The meaning of a lexeme is that intended by the author using it. The Strong's Concordance often sheds little light on what this meaning is in context. Therefore, claiming the meaning of a specific word in a given context is X on the basis of the Strong's Concordance is not a reliable claim.
...
Strong's Concordance is a great tool for identifying other occurrences of a lemma by using it's number (as this does not require that you can actually read the alphabet of the original language). This makes an original languages concordance accessible to those who cannot read those languages.

The gloss definition given by the concordance (or even a definition given by an outdated lexicon) can be helpful here in giving a general understanding of the lemma's meaning, but this should not be used as the sole source to justify the meaning or definition of the word in a specific textual context.

https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange ... -a-lexicon

It is evident that, given the context, Paul is going to raise a crescendo. As I show in this image:

No it is not evident, and your image is a work of faith, not backed up by evidence.

Note: one definition for "faith": "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
Of course, meant for early Christians, but certainly applicable to mythicists like you.

Furthermore, 1 Co 2 has nothing about the rulers having a different wisdom other than God' hidden one and "the wisdom of this age", except in your biased imagination. Instead, it is about God's wisdom (revealed through the holy spirit and the (human) wisdom of this age.

Hence I insist: the immediate context requires the meaning of "NOT EVEN" for οὐδέ.

This immediate context is solely set by your belief in the three different wisdoms. And now you want to buttress that belief by being selective about the meaning of οὐδέ. But your meaning goes against the one given by the Thatcher's Greek Lexicon which indicates that "and not" or "nor" is the proper translation for οὐ... οὐδέ.. (not... nor...). See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3761&t=KJV in the section "1. and not, continuing a negation".

So now, Thayer & myself & Ben are wrong according to you:

Ben C. Smith is particularly wrong when he writes:
There is no grammatical argument to be made from the word οὐδέ in 1 Corinthians 2.6 as concerns a comparison between the wisdom of this age and the wisdom of the rulers of this age. All the οὐ + οὐδέ means is that both have been negated; it suggests nothing as to the meaning, identity, or character of either item.
He can't eclipse/mitigate the difference between οὐ and οὐδέ. If I say that "Bernard is not correct and not even Ben is correct", I am assuming a priori that Ben has more probability than Bernard to be correct and despite of it he is wrong, too.

Idem in Paul: if he says that this age doesn't know the hidden wisdom and not even the rulers could know it,

So far, OK, because in your statement here, there is nothing to suggest a third wisdom.

then the archontic wisdom is greater than the "wisdom of this age" and therefore distinct from the latter.

NO, what you said before is not leading to your second statement.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 5:55 pm
I don't see in 1 Co 1 where human "of this age" are dispensing wisdom.
Please don't be obtuse, here. GakuseiDon has already conceded me that the wisdom of this age includes also the Greek philosophy, obviously a wisdom who is DISPENSED to humans.

But that does not show in Paul's epistles, and certainly not in 1 Co 1, where you directed me to look for it.

Without disturbing the Greek philosophers, note that the stoicheia in Galatians are portrayed in the act of giving the Law to Judaizers, hence they are dispensing information.

No, in Galatians, there is nothing about the stoicheia being portrayed in the act of giving the Law to Judaizers.
I wonder how you can think that.

At contrary, your ROMAN archontes of Romans 13:1-7 can only dispense JUSTICE, not wisdom.

These Roman Archontes in Romans 13:1-7 do dispense policing and justice, but that does not mean that they do not dispense other things.

In addition, I have never seen a human person "who rules the time" (sic), but I can well imagine the God of Time, Chronos.
This to say that the mere name "rulers of this age" is sufficient to make my case, and to give me the right to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty if you disagree with me about this point.

Well, "rulers of this age" is not sufficient, by a long shot, because you have been searching for evidence to support your case. And your (so-called) evidence has been refuted by I, piece by piece, with solid evidence on my side. But you are still clinging to your so-called evidence despite the weight of the clear-cut counter-evidence. So do not lecture me about intellectual dishonesty. And ask yourself: does intellectual dishonesty apply to me?

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Bernard,

I am surprised to see how much convoluted is your apology.

You write:

Thayer & myself & Ben are wrong according to you

...but I have read that a possible translation of οὐδέ is "not even". You and Ben C. Smith want to deny even the possibility that οὐδέ has to mean 'not even' in the passage we are talking about, and this I call 'fool apology'.

Can you explain me why this Thayer has more authority than Strong?

Not only, but you, as mere apologist here, are going to elude too much easily my criticism against Ben C. Smith in the previous post:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7138&p=114306#p114296

...where I prove, based on evidence, that sometimes the context requires that οὐδέ has to mean necessarily "not even" in Mark 14:68, at least insofar the act of understanding includes the act of knowing (and it cannot be reduced to mere act of knowing, as Ben's strange logic would like).

Accordingly, applying the same criterion in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, οὐδέ has to mean necessarily "not even" insofar the "wisdom of the rulers of this age" has to be necessarily more great than the mere "wisdom of this age".

Who is more great, according to you, o Bernard: the age, or the beings who rule the age?

• if you answer that the rulers are more great than the age ruled by them, then the rulers have to have more power in terms of knowledge/wisdom than the mere age ruled by them.

• if you answer that the rulers are powerful in the same measure of the age ruled by them, then I can call you an intellectually dishonest, here, because the answer is completely false.

Other errors by Bernard:

No, in Galatians, there is nothing about the stoicheia being portrayed in the act of giving the Law to Judaizers.
I wonder how you can think that.

Galatians 4:9-10 is there to prove that the stoichea dispense wisdom:

But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces ? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!

Ask why the Judaizers wanted to observe "special days and months and seasons and years": because they wanted to receive special gifts by the stoichea, as effect of their stoicheiolatry. Among their gifts, being the stoichea also planets, there is surely the prophecy, a particular form of wisdom dispensed by reading the planets (isn't it true, GakuseiDon?).

• Hence, demon rulers can dispense very well wisdom.

• While Roman archontes of Romans 13:1-7 don't dispense wisdom, but justice.

...therefore the archontes of 1 Cor 2:6-8 are demon rulers, and not Romans, since a wisdom is connected with them.