An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12422
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:10 am

Giuseppe has been looking here and there for 'sightings' or possible sightings of the Demiurge in the gospel. The difficulty with this argument is that it assumes that the conversion of the Demiurge could have happened at any time. This contradicts what we know of Marcionite gnosis - as reported by Eznik - that the Demiurge was converted AFTER the Resurrection. There is no doubt about this. And the theory dovetails interestingly with certain statements in Origen (from the neo-Marcionite 'capitol' of Alexandria) that in his system even the 'Devil' was capable of metanoia.

If then, the original myth involving the conversion of the Demiurge assumed that it occurred AFTER the Resurrection the obvious narrative which matches this 'myth' was of course the conversion of Paul. While Tertullian says this:
Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection; by necessity (so to speak), and not voluntary choice, although the members of the apostolate had been duly ordained, and were now dismissed to their several missions.
The idea that Paul would only become a Christian immediately after the Resurrection makes perfect sense. It doesn't assume 'improvidence' imputed to Christ. The encounter between Paul and Christ and his 'vision' makes perfect sense. The only difficulty being that 'Paul' wouldn't likely have been a rabbi named Saul but some sort of an archon. Just saying ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8023
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:19 am

A demiurge who converts himself and becomes good can only reflect a gnosticism going to be partially judaized, just as Sabaoth becomes good after the his conversion while the his father Yaldabaoth is thrown in the hell.

Eznik is late to understand the early Satornilos, Cerdon, Marcion.

If Paul is seen as an archon and THE abort (demiurge), then this is part and parcel of the legend of Paul persecutor, an evident Judaizing interpolation in the epistles designed to reduce the importance of Paul (basically, I am resuming here the great finding of Roger Parvus) by casting the his historical Gnostic use of him as Christian persecutor of Judaizers in the historical Catholic use of him as pre-Christian persecutor of the Pillars.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12422
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:03 am

I obviously wasn't asking Giuseppe to critique his own omniscience. Also IT IS ALWAYS PREFERABLE to find ancient attestation for an idea.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Post by davidmartin » Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:08 pm

Sure SA, Paul as 'demiurge' is workable. And could of had a human basis why not.
In the Tripartate tractate the figure of 'logos' plays role of demiurge in almost a postive way and resembles Paul in a suspicious way. There's more i just don't have time to sort it out and extract it all from here
The intent, then, of the Logos, who is this one, was good. When he had come forth, he gave glory to the Father, even if it led to something beyond possibility, since he had wanted to bring forth one who is perfect, from an agreement in which he had not been, and without having the command. [Paul's preaching]

This aeon was last to have <been> brought forth by mutual assistance [Paul last apostle], and he was small in magnitude [said to be short right!?]. And before he begot anything else for the glory of the will and in agreement with the Totalities, he acted, magnanimously, from an abundant love, and set out toward that which surrounds the perfect glory,..
The Logos, being in such unstable conditions, did not continue to bring forth anything like emanations, the things which are in the Pleroma, the glories which exist for the honor of the Father. Rather, he brought forth little weaklings, hindered) by the illnesses by which he too was hindered. [Paul's faults as per Romans]

Until the one who brought forth into the defect these things which were thus in need, until he judged those who came into being because of him contrary to reason - which is the judgment which became a condemnation - he struggled against them unto destruction, that is, the ones who struggled against the condemnation and whom the wrath pursues [something to do with Paul's persecutions???], while it (the wrath) accepts and redeems (them) from their (false) opinion and apostasy, since from it is the conversion which is also called "metanoia." The Logos turned to another opinion and another thought. Having turned away from evil, he turned toward the good things. Following the conversion came the thought of the things which exist and the prayer for the one who converted himself to the good [Paul's conversion]

Therefore, it is not fitting to criticize the movement which is the Logos [Paul], but it is fitting that we should say about the movement of the Logos that it is a cause of an organization which has been destined to come about. [his churches and orthadoxy]
Basically this text is accepting of Paul as a manifestation of the Logos, whacks away the Sophia myth and anyone who bashes the demiurge/Paul while still bashing orthodoxy. Classic Valentinian position. But gives the clue the demiurge is a merger of Paul + pre-existing concept of demiurge from Plato, church history and divine fullness = the same damn thing to gnostics!
I mean, does this sound like some divinity or a person who did stuff?

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1545
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:26 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:08 pm
This aeon was last to have <been> brought forth by mutual assistance [Paul last apostle], and he was small in magnitude [said to be short right!?].
I mean, does this sound like some divinity or a person who did stuff?
Sounds like Mucianus, of whom Vespasian once said, "At least I am a man...". Mucianus was the Template for Tiny...uhhh...Paul. He loved Titus and threw in with Vespasian only after the intercession of Jesus...Titus (and his advisers) "On the Road to Damascus".

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Post by davidmartin » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:05 pm

Charles you make it sound like a gay sit-com, with feigned dislike concealing desires for erotic consumation

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1545
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: An Improvement Over Giuseppe's NUMEROUS 'Demiurge' Arguments

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:17 pm

John 19: 29 (RSV):

[29] A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth.

Of course, we just can't have a gay Jesus now, could we?

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Vitellius":

"Beginning in this way, he regulated the greater part of his rule wholly according to the advice and whims of the commonest of actors and chariot-drivers, and in particular of his freedman Asiaticus. This fellow had immoral relations with Vitellius in his youth, but later grew weary of him and ran away. When Vitellius came upon him selling posca18 at Puteoli, he put him in irons, but at once freed him again and made him his favourite..."

Note 18: "A drink made of sour wine or vinegar mixed with water"

So we get to the Tie-In with Mucianus and "Paul":

Tacitus, Histories, Book 2:

"Vespasian was an energetic soldier; he could march at the head of his army, choose the place for his camp, and bring by night and day his skill, or, if the occasion required, his personal courage to oppose the foe. His food was such as chance offered; his dress and appearance hardly distinguished him from the common soldier; in short, but for his avarice, he was equal to the generals of old. Mucianus, on the contrary, was eminent for his magnificence, for his wealth, and for a greatness that transcended in all respects the condition of a subject; readier of speech than the other, he thoroughly understood the arrangement and direction of civil business. It would have been a rare combination of princely qualities, if, with their respective faults removed, their virtues only could have been united in one man. Mucianus was governor of Syria, Vespasian of Judaea. In the administration of these neighbouring provinces jealousy had produced discord between them, but on Nero's fall they had dropped their animosities and associated their counsels. At first they communicated through friends, till Titus, who was the great bond of union between them, by representing their common interests had terminated their mischievous feud... "

Acts 9: 3 - 5 (RSV):

[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
[5] And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;"

There ARE Jokes aplenty here. Here's ONE:

Acts 13: 7 - 11 (RSV):

[7] He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
[8] But El'ymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.
[9] But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him
[10] and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?
[11] And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.

Our old friend and now seldom seen Poster, Jay Raskin, thought that this section was a true horror. It actually allows you to identify the names of some of these Players. "Elymas, the Magician" is Nero.

Nero was the adopted son of Claudius. If you accept the version of John 3:16 that has "...his only begotten son..." you may begin to see the loophole.

"You are the son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy..." is quite correct. The Bio father of Nero was Evil and Nero was seen to have followed in his footsteps.

"You shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time..."

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Nero":

"He planned but two foreign tours, to Alexandria and Achaia; and he gave up the former on the very day when he was to have started, disturbed by a threatening portent. For as he was making the round of the temples and had sat down in the shrine of Vesta, first the fringe of his garment caught when he attempted to get up, and then such darkness overspread his eyes that he could see nothing..."

I could bring up the evil of Nero and his "Bride" Sporus but that one would take up too much space at this time. (See: E. Warren and her recent assent to Genital Mutilation as State Policy. We're not so far advanced as we may think.)

Which brings us back to Mucianus. I assert that the episode with Stephen Martyr is a Critical Moment in the understanding of Mucianus as "Paul" but let us look at that one more piece from Suetonius:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Vespasian":

"He bore the frank language of his friends, the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience. Though Licinius Mucianus, a man of notorious unchastity, presumed upon his services to treat Vespasian with scant respect, he never had the heart to criticize him except privately and then only to the extent of adding to a complaint made to a common friend, the significant words: "I at least am a man."

The NT as "Gay Comedy"? "Oh, you BITCH!!!..."

We don't know the half of it.

CW

Post Reply