Also the archons were hidden and seen as Gods...

[Giuseppe]

I think now that not only Jesus was not seen by the his killers (the archons of this age) but that also the same archons were not seen as such by the humanity. The people believed that the archons were Gods and adored them. After the death of Jesus and by it, the veil was removed from their eyes and they recognized their real identity: demons and not Gods.

This was the goal of Jesus, also. To deceive who was deceiving the mere humanity.

[lsayre]

Wow, where did that come from?

[Giuseppe]

From the pre-christian ''Naassen Hymn'' (really, a Jewish Hymn):

Then Jesus said, "Behold, Father, she wanders the earth pursued by evil. Far from thy Breath she is going astray. She is trying to flee bitter Chaos, and does not know how she is to escape. Send me forth, O Father, therefore, and I, bearing the seal shall descend and wander all Aeons through, all mysteries reveal. I shall manifest the forms of the gods and teach them the secrets of the holy way which I call Gnosis [.....]"

http://gnosis.org/library/naas.htm

''To make manifest the forms of the gods'' means showing them as they are really: demons, and false gods.

I consider this hymn as pre-christian because Hyppolitus means clearly that the Naasseni were prior to Simon Magus, a contemporary of Peter and Paul (for the same Hyppolitus). Even if ''Simon Magus'' is a legend invented by Acts, in any case he serves (at least) to allude unambiguously to the so-called ''apostolic age'', therefore there are no doubts that the Naasseni were before that date, according to Hyppolitus.

[lsayre]

Your web link indicates 110 to 140 AD. How does this precede Christianity?

[Giuseppe]

The Naassen Hymn mentions ''Jesus''.

Having dealt with the Naasseni, then Hyppolitus deals with the Perathians,
then with the Sethians, then with Justin, and finally with Simon Magus.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm

Since, then, we have explained the attempts (at a system) of the pseudo-gnostic Justinus, it appears likewise expedient in the following books to elucidate the opinions put forward in heresies following (in the way of consequence upon the doctrines of Justinus), and to leave not a single one of these (speculators) unrefuted. Our refutation will be accomplished by adducing the assertions made by them; such (at least of their statements) as are sufficient for making a public example (of these heretics). (And we shall attain our purpose), even though there should only be condemned the secret and ineffable (mysteries) practised amongst them, into which, silly mortals that they are, scarcely (even) with considerable labour are they initiated. Let us then see what also Simon affirms.

Therefore the chronological order, according to Hyppolitus, is:

1) the Naaseni, first,
2) the Perathians, then,
3) the Sethians,
4) Justin,
5) Simon Magus

But Simon Magus is (assumed to be) contemporary with Peter and Paul.

THerefore at least the Naaseni existed prior Peter and Paul.

Therefore their hymn is pre-christian.

[Bernard Muller]

1) the Naaseni, first,
2) the Perathians, then,
3) the Sethians,
4) Justin,
5) Simon Magus

But Simon Magus is (assumed to be) contemporary with Peter and Paul.

According to Hyppolytus, Justinus knew about the gospels:

Justinus was entirely opposed to the teaching of the holy Scriptures, and moreover to the written or oral teaching of the blessed evangelists,

(Against All Heresies V, XVIII)

And he believed in an earthly human Jesus:

Finally, however, in the days of Herod the king, Baruch is dispatched, being sent down once more by Elohim; and coming to Nazareth, he found Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, a child of twelve years, feeding sheep.

(Against All Heresies V, XXI)

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

It is sure then than Hyppolitus puts on Justinus (if he existed) the historicist doctrines of the his later followers. It doesn't matter the historicity of Justinus or Simon Magus. What matters is that "Simon Magus", according to Hyppolitus, alludes indirectly to the apostolic age. And he means clearly - even if he considers Simon as the father of all the heresies - that the Naasseni were prior Simon Magus, ergo for the transitive property....

[Bernard Muller]

The Naasseni also seem aware of the gospels & epistles and believed into an earthly human Jesus:

All these qualities, however--rational, and psychical, and earthly--have, (the Naassene) says, retired and descended into one man simultaneously--Jesus, who was born of Mary.

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, V, I)

These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne. In order, then, that these impious (heretics) may no longer belie Mariamne or James, or the Saviour Himself,

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, V, II)

Furthermore the Naasseni quoted quite a few sayings of Jesus as appearing in the gospels: Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, V, III

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Hyppolitus is calling "Naassene" that particular hymn because it was preserved by Naasseni until to his time. In his time the Naasseni were clearly historicist as well as Hyppolitus himself (ergo reading the hymn with historicist lens). But if you put that hymn before the presumed time of Simon Magus - and you should do so, according to Hyppolitus - then that hymn fails to be historicist.

[Giuseppe]

Hyppolitus doesn't say that the Naasseni were estinguished when he wrote. And if they were not estinguished, then they became probably historicist Christians at the time of Hyppolitus. It is natural that Hyppolitus would make the early Naasseni as identical entirely, in creed and doctrine, to the historicist Naasseni his contemporaries. Fortunately, he gives us a hymn held by the pre-christian Naasseni. We know that the hymn is pre-christian only because their original owners were so, according to the chronology given by Hyppolitus.