Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:42 am

In a curious version of Ascension of Isaiah, there is the following passage:

Et princeps mundi illius propter filium ejus extendet manus suas in eum et suspendent illum in ligno, et occidet eum nesciens qui sit.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4683#p93631

And the god of that world will stretch out his hand against the Son of him [of the god of that world], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is.

I think that the only possible explanation for the very strange fact that Satan killed his Son, is that the Son of the Supreme God assumed the appearance, in the last level where he descended to, of the creatures of the "god of this world". Since we know that that appearance is a human appearance, then we should conclude that the god of this world was also the creator of that world. So, there is a distinction at work between the demiurge and the supreme god.

The Son died in the flesh of one of the creatures of the demiurge. We have a separationist view insofar the Son of the Father didn't suffer really, while a creature of the Creator (hence his son) suffered by hand of the Creator himself.

This view seems to be in nuce the same reported later about the first readers of Mark:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11)

So the god of that world, by killing the mere man possessed by the Son of the Father, kills really only one of the his creatures on earth, without knowing really the identity of the his victim. The Archon believed that that man was an intruder, but really the victim was only a mere man: the true his spiritual possessor was not truly killed by the Archon.

So in 1 Cor 2:6-8 Paul would be saying that Jesus was not really crucified by the archons, but only the his mere clone in the flesh was crucified. Even so, the Archons's sin was a sin of hybris: an act of revolt against the Lord of the Glory.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:44 am

The Vision of Isaiah
“...may have been written by a Simonian, around the time of Menander”

(Simone Petrement, A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, p. 326).


Effectively, reading J. Magne’s book, I found written:
In the Ascension of Isaiah the angel who led Isaiah to the seventh heaven did not pronounce the ineffable Name of the Lord who will descend on earth, but revealed that when he has descended he will be given the name of Jesus:

E. Tisserant (later cardinal) in a note in his translation supposes the words ”who will be called Jesus in the world” to be an interpolation because ”Jesus” is the name Isaiah could not yet hear. But Isaiah in his flesh, like all men, can hear the name of ”Jesus”, borne, moreover by many others than the Saviour, but cannot hear the ineffable Name YHWH, a name so ineffable that scholars were obliged to rediscover its pronuntiation.

(From Gnosis to Christianity, p. 184-185, my bold)

So, according to J. Magne, the previous Gnostic text on which the our AoI is based had the following rules of the game:

1) the supreme god = not the Creator but the alien god of the Gnostics

2) the Son = Sabaoth the converted son of the evil Demiurge Yaldabaoth.

3)
this Sabaoth was killed by Yaldabaoth and he became himself the new Demiurge in the place of Yaldabaoth, therefore receiving the name of YHWH.

4) The our AoI was written by a judaizing author who was scandalized by this previous text and corrected it, but he left a surprising trace of that previous version, a kind of lectio difficilior:

Et princeps mundi illius propter filium ejus extendet manus suas in eum et suspendent illum in ligno, et occidet eum nesciens qui sit.


And the prince of that world will stretch out his hand against the Son of him [OF THE PRINCE OF THAT WORLD], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is.

The ony possible way the Archon of this world can kill just the his Son (just when we believe that this Son is the Son of the supreme god and NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT, of the Archon) is that the Son is the repented Sabaoth son o fthe evil Yaldabaoh. As effect of the his conversion, the bastard son of the Demiurge (”son of carpenter”) and of the prostitute Sophia (“Mary”) is punished just by the old Demiurge and, as reward, he is made the new Demiurge of the new Creation (the original Hymn to Philippians), but who gives him this reward is the supreme god (not the god of the Jews), the Unknown God of the Gnostics.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:11 am

if the father of the Son (Sabaoth) is an evil deity (Yaldabaoth), then this explains the Talmudic accusation against Jesus: he is the bastard son of the Roman soldier Panthera. Roman as the ruler of this world.

A common folk etymology derives the word from Greek pan- (πάν), meaning "all", and thēr (θήρ), meaning "beast of prey". I would like ''all-beast''. The demiurge was conceived as a totally bestial deity.

Indeed, more beast than so:

Image

Therefore the Talmudists were reporting in a judaizing form the accusation thrown against the pre-christian Gnostics: your deity Jesus is really the bastard son Sabaoth of the bestial deity-Archon Yaldabaoth (''carpenter'' and ''panthera'' and ''Roman'') and of the prostitute Sophia (''Mary'').

That accusation was masked even more in the Gospels, where Joseph fears that his wife is a prostitute. The demiurge fears the betrayal of Sophia for another, higher deity.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:37 pm

The revolt of the young Sabaoth against the old demiurge Yaldabaoth, after the his conversion/kenosis (=the original kenosis judaized in the Hymn to Philippians), is allegorized also by the revolt of the young (leader) Simon Magus against the old (leader) Dositheus.


Meantime, at the outset, as soon as he was reckoned among the thirty disciples of Dositheus, he began to depreciate Dositheus himself, saying that he did not teach purely or perfectly, and that this was the result not of ill intention, but of ignorance. But Dositheus, when he perceived that Simon was depreciating him, fearing lest his reputation among men might be obscured (for he himself was supposed to be the Standing One), moved with rage, when they met as usual at the school, seized a rod, and began to beat Simon; but suddenly the rod seemed to pass through his body, as if it had been smoke. On which Dositheus, being astonished, says to him, ‘Tell me if thou art the Standing One, that I may adore thee.’ And when Simon answered that he was, then Dositheus, perceiving that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshipped him, and gave up his own place as chief to Simon, ordering all the rank of thirty men to obey him; himself taking the inferior place which Simon formerly occupied. Not long after this he died.”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/008/0080148.htm

Note that Dositheus resembles perfectly the evil traits of the old demiurge Yaldabaoth.

The kenosis of Simon is allegorized by the his body becoming "docetic" to receive the attack by the rod of Dositheus.

As effect of this show of kenosis (=docetism), Dositheus is converted (in this he is similar to Sabaoth) and Simon becomes the new god.

Could this legend be the euhemerization of the mythological story of the conflict between Yaldabaoth and Sabaoth?

If the answer is yes, then Simon may be the first figure who euhemerized the mythological Son Sabaoth
. Against this figure, the Judaizers claimed that Simon was only an usurper of the title of Son. The "real" Son was Jesus, in turn the euhemerization of the same Sabaoth figure (where obviously the Father is the Jewish god)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:57 pm

To test an idea of the kind (Simon and Dositheus as euhemerized Sabaoth and Yaldabaoth, before the Gospel Jesus):

Where is Simon in the Gospels?

He is Peter, Simon Kephas.

His crime, in the end of the Gospels, is implicit in the his not going to Galilee to met the Risen Jesus.
He didn't go to Galilee because we are said that the pious women didn't inform him about the angelic directive.

But by simply not going to Galilee, in virtue of that only fact, Simon Kephas resembles Simon Magus, since he becomes the STANDING ONE by excellence. And the STANDING ONE in Jerusalem.

When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains

(Mark 13:14)

SIMON Peter is "standing" in Jerusalem when he is Galilean. He is therefore a dangerous intruder. Just as Simon Magus appearing as the Son in Judea.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:09 pm

Insofar the reader is left to hope that Peter repented and goes to Galilee, then he is not more STANDING in Jerusalem and so he ceases to be Simon Magus to become entirely absorbed in the his new role of First Apostle of Jesus.

But insofar he is suspected to remain in Jerusalem even after the angelic news, well: he is cursed as very similar to the STANDING ONE: Simon Magus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:31 pm

In an original version of the story, Joseph the CARPENTER realizes that the his son (or the his wife) has betrayed him for a higher deity, and therefore kills him (and/or her). But, as reward, the son and her mother are risen/saved and the demiurge/carpenter Joseph dies.

The name "Joseph" is so a mask to eclipse the real death of the evil demiurge behind the death of the messiah "ben Joseph". Insofar Jesus is seen at least partially as the suffering Messiah ben Joseph, the reader can't see the original conflict between the demiurge and the Son of the demiurge.
Between Yaldabaoth and Sabaoth.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:11 pm

Here "Mark" may be seen as replying against the old accusation about Jesus as son of the evil demiurge and possessed by him.
And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

In the particular version of the Ascension of Isaiah (see above), we have really the case where Satan kills his son himself (and not the son of the supreme god).

So "Mark" (author) can't eclipse entirely what was so embarrassing for him: the myth of Sabaoth who repented and destroyed the his evil father Yaldabaoth.

Note the similar sequence:

1) the strong man is neutralized before
2) then there is the plunder of the his house.

...occurring in the gnostic myth of Yaldabaoth:

1) the demiurge is thrown in the Hades by Sophia
2) then there is the metanoia and exaltation of Sabaoth as new lord of the creation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4724
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why the Archon of this World kills just his son (and not the Son of Father)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:00 am

Only the thesis of Magne can make sense about an enigmatic occurrence of Abbà two times in Mark.


Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”


(Mark 14:35)

A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.

(Mark 15:7)


Mark 14:35 is the passage that more has to allegorize in narrative form the important incipit of the Hymn to Philippians:

...who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited
,

...since there, in the Gethsemani, Jesus is going to empty himself as per the Hymn.

So just in that same moment, there is an allusion to who, differently from Jesus, ''did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited"
. He is Barabbas. He is introduced in virtue of the simple, first occurrence of the name ''Abba". Barabbas is the perfect image of another Father, Yaldabaoth.

But why imagine that Jesus might have wished to usurp this equality with God? The only reason I can see is that in the author's mind, he is identified with the gnostic Sabaoth, first in his metanoia, then in his exaltation. As Sabaoth, unlike his father Yaldabaoth, did not seek to pass himself off as God by saying ''I am God and there is no other'', but was humble enough to convert, in reward for which he was exalted, so Jesus far from seeking to usurp equality with God, demeaned and humbled himself, in reward for which he was superexalted.

(From Gnosis to Christianity, p. 177, my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply