An unexpected contradiction in Hebrews 1

[Giuseppe]

Hebrews 1

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

The mythicist Jean Magne does an interesting observation:

Why, if Christ is Son, is he “appointed” heir to all things? Is not he natural heir and even owner just as creator? Why, above all, if he is a Son, is he “became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs?” The answer is, on the one hand, that it is Sabaoth, the son of Ialdabaoth, who was established in the seventh heaven by Sophia, who is became heir of the world created by his father Ialdabaoth precipitated in Tartarus, who has received more power over the seven heavens above the firmament and over all the powers, in other words, over all things; and, on the other hand, that it is the Gnostic Savior Jesus who has received the name of “Lord Sabaoth”, “the Name above any other name”.

(source: https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cg ... ey=2127759 )

Remember that Sabaoth was stripped of a bad father (the evil demiurge Ialdabaoth) and became himself the Good Creator in the his place:

This ruler, by being androgynous, made himself a vast realm, an extent without limit. And he contemplated creating offspring for himself, and created for himself seven offspring, androgynous just like their parent. And he said to his offspring, "It is I who am god of the entirety."
And Zoe (Life), the daughter of Pistis Sophia, cried out and said to him, "You are mistaken, Sakla!" – for which the alternative name is Yaltabaoth. She breathed into his face, and her breath became a fiery angel for her; and that angel bound Yaldabaoth and cast him down into Tartaros below the abyss.
Now when his offspring Sabaoth saw the force of that angel, he repented and condemned his father and his mother, matter. He loathed her, but he sang songs of praise up to Sophia and her daughter Zoe. And Sophia and Zoe caught him up and gave him charge of the seventh heaven, below the veil between above and below. And he is called 'God of the forces, Sabaoth', since he is up above the forces of chaos, for Sophia established him.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

With Jesus we have a similar process: his father had to be not more the Higher God than the evil demiurge, but the same creator god.


But the fact that the creator had to adopt Jesus despite of the his being proclaimed by Hebrews 1 as the his “natural” heir is a strong evidence of the essential extraneousness of Jesus towards this his “new” father (the Jewish god).

The contradiction of Hebrews 1 is therefore to describe the Son in the same time:
- as pre-existent Son
- as adopted Son


An adopted son is not the true son.


Note this contradiction also in Mark: Jesus seems adopted by the Jewish creator by the descending of the dove allegory of the Holy Spirit. But the “dove” has as numeric value: 801, i.e. the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. So how can Jesus be adopted during the Baptism as the son of God and in the same time be the Alpha of the Creation, i.e. pre-existent to it?

[Giuseppe]

The same contradiction is found in the incipit of Romans:

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

The fact that Jesus is "appointed" the Son of God implies that he is not the Son before that fact, against all the evidence of the contrary in the pauline epistles.

How can we explain the contradiction? The point is that Jesus is "appointed" Son in a particular way: "through the Spirit of holiness".

This means that the Jesus was pre-existent, but became "Son" only by being purified by the Spirit, just as Sabaoth was already a deity (as son of the evil demiurge Ialdabaoth) but he became really the new ruler of the creation only after the his conversion by the action of the Sophia, herself working in this case as "the Spirit of holiness".

In all these cases a pre-existent being is judaized by reducing him to be the son of the Jewish god, but always preserving his status of pre-existent being.

[Stuart]

These are both examples of Adoptionist theology

[Giuseppe]

These are both examples of Adoptionist theology

I interpret your observation as: “I see that this is evidence of mere adoptionism, so no need of further speculations”. You may be right about the incipit of Romans (especially assuming your view of Romans as a composite and late work), but the point is that Hebrews is a more integral work in comparison to Romans, hence the author of Hebrews had clearly in mind the adoption of someone who was already considered Son before the his same adoption. The contradiction disappears if you interpret the passage with lens coloured by Gospel. But the contradiction is there is you assume that the author of Hebrews didn't know about a historical Jesus (as I obviously do). The presence of this contradiction doesn't support the historicity. Who is adopted is not a mere man, but someone who was already adored as Son.

Only, as son of the wrong god.

Therefore the author of Hebrews is carrying the paternity of the his Jesus from the demiurge Ialdabaoth to the demiurge the god creator (in both the cases, always a demiurge, but in the first case a demiurge seen in a negative light: Yaldabaoth, while in the second case, as a demiurge seen in a positive light: YHWH).

This carrying of paternity was necessary insofar the creator god had to be the unique and only god worthy of worship, in the eyes of the author of Hebrews.

Hence the adoptionism is born from the need to give to a deity (Jesus) a different (divine) father from the his previous (divine) father.

The anti-Gnostic Gospels say us that the father of Jesus was the carpenter Joseph. Not coincidentially, a craftsman, or “demiurge” (historicized/judaized in the fiction as Joseph).


To prevent criticisms, I point out again and again that who adored Jesus as son of a negative demiurge (Ialdabaoth) was himself a Judaizer of a previous not-Jewish Gnostic myth.

[Giuseppe]

Another example of conflict between an adoptionist reading and a pre-existent Son in the same verse:

John 1:34

I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One.”

Another reading says:

“I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”

Which reading is more original? Note that in the fourth gospel there is no baptism of Jesus, ergo he is not established/appointed son of god in a precise moment. Hence how can he be “chosen” when a Son is chosen by definition?


Really, both the readings are judaizing interpolations: the Jew (=monotheist) John the Baptist assures, confirms and testifies that this Son of God is the Son of YHWH and not of an alien god who is enemy of YHWH. The his election makes him the son of YHWH, just as the his description as Son of God by a Jew (John the Baptist) doesn't leave doubt about which god is meant (or better: has to be meant, against the original Gnostic author).