We know that in traditional Canaanite religion El is the creator of the universe and the Father of the terrestrial gods. Yahweh is a son of El, the protector of Israelites, who comes to earth and acts on behalf of his father.
The Torah conflates Yahweh with his father El, claiming that Yahweh is in fact El.
Gnosticism correctly identifies this deceit, teaching that Yahweh is a lair who falsely claims to be the only God, pretending to be the lord of the universe, though in fact he is merely the creator of this material world. Gnosticism essentially views Yahweh as the "lord of this world", and Yahweh is, for all intents and purposes, evil.
But who is the Lord Jesus?
It would seem that the original layer of the Pauline letters identify the Lord Jesus as Yahweh, the son of El the Father. The Pauline letters seem to recognize the split between the Father and the Son, God and terrestrial Lord. But the Pauline letters clearly identify the Lord as good.
So we have a Father-God and a Son-Lord. The Gnostics recognize Yahweh as a Son-Lord, but they do not conflate Jesus with Yahweh. Instead, they see Jesus as another son of Father-God who is opposed to Yahweh.
The Pauline letters seem to conflate Jesus with Yahweh the Son-Lord.
The Jews from Qumran viewed Belial/Satan as the "lord of this world", who was spawned by the amalgam God-Lord of the Torah. They didn't consider his a "son of God", but somehow a creation of God nonetheless, who had been given dominion over the material world.
A layer of the Gospel of John seems to have viewed Belial/Satan as a son of Yahweh. This would presume Yahweh to be the "lord of this world", with Satan as a general under the command of Yahweh, his father. So a layer of the Gospel of John seems to recognize a Father-God and a Son-Lord associated with Yahweh, who also has his own Son-Lord. Jesus then is presumably another Son-Lord of Father-God, according to this layer.
But, how are Pauline letters that view Yahweh the Son-Lord as good become conflated with the Gnostic view of Yahweh the Son-Lord as evil?
1) All parties view Father-God as good.
2) Pre-Torah Jews of the 4th century BCE very likely viewed Father-God as distinct from his Son-Lord Yahweh, who was "lord of Israel" and possibly even "lord of this world".
2) "Temple Jews" viewed Father-Lord as one, with no heavenly sons, and he is the the only God and the "lord of this world".
3) Qumranic Jews viewed Father-Lord as one, with no heavenly sons. However they viewed Belial/Satan as a creation of Father-Lord who was given dominion over the earth by Father-Lord for peculiar reasons. Belial/Satan is "lord of this world".
4) The Paulines as we have them view Father-God as good, and Son-Lord as good. The Paulines seem to conflate Son-Lord Jesus with Yahweh.
5) The Gnostics view Father-God as good, with Jesus being his Son-Lord, but Jesus is not Yahweh, in fact he is the opponent of Yahweh. Yahweh is also a Son-Lord, along with many other figures, such as his mother, etc.
Clearly there is conflation between Yahweh and Belial/Satan in the Gnostic system. It seems the Gnostics deny the existence of Satan and assert that Yahweh is effectively Satan.
On the one hand, the separation of Father-God and Son-Lord in the Pauline letters seems to make perfect sense and can be understood as a recognition of the original separation of Father and Son in pre-Torah Judaism. However, there are no other examples of variants of Judaism that both recognize this separation and take a positive view of the Son. Gnosticism is the other main variant of Judaism that recognizes this split, but Gnosticism views the Son as a liar and usurper.
Likewise, the Gnostics view the Son as the Creator of the world, just as various early Christian works view Jesus the Son-Lord as the Creator of the world. This implies that Jesus is Yahweh the Son-Lord, but clearly there is a breakdown between the Gnostic view and the Christian view. Under the Gnostic scheme Jesus is NOT the Creator of the world. It's an interesting conflation.
Its interesting how in the two schemes, is seems that Jesus is conflated with Yahweh in one scheme and is presented as the opponent of Yahweh in the other scheme. This, of course, is because of Belial/Satan, because it is Yahweh who is conflated with Belial/Satan.
How could Gnostics confuse the fact that Jesus was Son-Lord Yahweh with the view that Jesus was the opponent of Son-Lord Yahweh?
Jesus is the opponent of the "lord of this world". So Jesus is defined in opposition to who the "lord of this world" is. If Satan is the "lord of this world" then Jesus is the enemy of Satan. If Yahweh is the "lord of this world" then Jesus is the enemy of Yahweh.
I'm still unclear what the original writer of the Paulines thought the "lord of this world" was. I lean toward Belial/Satan.
El, Yahweh, Belial - the son of who?
Re: El, Yahweh, Belial - the son of who?
This view is partially not new. According to William Benjamin Smith's skeptical classic Ecce Deus, Jesus is YHWH in Paul.
The principal implication, per W. B. Smith, was that the exorcisms in the first gospel were designed to describe Jesus as destroyer of the Pagan gods (the demons) who infested the earth. So the first gospel would be merely the story of this crusade against polytheism, because the Christian propaganda itself was a crusade against polytheism.
The principal implication, per W. B. Smith, was that the exorcisms in the first gospel were designed to describe Jesus as destroyer of the Pagan gods (the demons) who infested the earth. So the first gospel would be merely the story of this crusade against polytheism, because the Christian propaganda itself was a crusade against polytheism.
Re: El, Yahweh, Belial - the son of who?
Well, sort of, except the fact that by deifying God and Lord you effectively create two Gods, which is exactly what the "mainstream" Jews were guarding against. Jews made very clear pronouncements that God and Lord were one and the same, and you were not to read the Lord as a separate being from God. But Paul clearly makes the Lord separate from God, thereby making two gods.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:31 am This view is partially not new. According to William Benjamin Smith's skeptical classic Ecce Deus, Jesus is YHWH in Paul.
The principal implication, per W. B. Smith, was that the exorcisms in the first gospel were designed to describe Jesus as destroyer of the Pagan gods (the demons) who infested the earth. So the first gospel would be merely the story of this crusade against polytheism, because the Christian propaganda itself was a crusade against polytheism.
Re: Keeping Tally
A divinized man became a god or was a new (additional) god born on earth (i.e. 'Jesus') . But there was a well-known Alexandrian precedent of sorts for that: Moses, c.150 BC.rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 7:13 amWell, sort of, except the fact that by deifying God and Lord you effectively create two Gods, which is exactly what the "mainstream" Jews were guarding against. Jews made very clear pronouncements that God and Lord were one and the same, and you were not to read the Lord as a separate being from God. But Paul clearly makes the Lord separate from God, thereby making two gods.
Writing around the same period (ca. 180 B.C.E.), Joshua Ben Sira describes how God: “made him (=Moses) equal to the glory of holy ones” (Ben Sira 45:2)
Did Moses become the Logos, or replace Melchizedek also? And what's the oldest date for all those angels they worshipped? (Angels are usually demoted or conquered gods, still divine powers.)
Obviously, I don't like the erroneous, oversimplified 'Two God' blanket. IF only it were true!
Re: Belial = Horon?
A quick reference to Belial:
I wonder if "Spirits of Nothingness" are Wraiths of Oblivion. Belial is also associated w/ "faithless Jews". The mythology seems most closely linked to the Enochic/Sethian tradition. The Avenging Angel or Angel of the Abyss is Horon/Baal Zeboul, God of the Abyss. He is symbolized as a stinging swarm, poisoned arrows or hornets: Lord of Death, Destruction & Terror in His Negative Aspect. All of this long pre-dates the Jesus Christ mythos.
Totally different direction, now. The Synoptic Gospels state the rabbis said the Great Power of Jesus (the Nazorean, I accept) was none other than Baal-Zeboul, aka Horon, an ancient (Israeli) god of Semite mercenaries c.2,000 BC. Indisputably, Semitic Horon is demonstrated from dated archaeological evidence (in Egypt) yet a god still worshipped (in 'Israel') c.600-250 BC, however lately & partially assimilated to Eshmun (among other deities?).
Baal-Zeboul was a dual-natured deity, Savior but also a Destroyer, God of the Abyss, etc. Horon's connection to Belial looks very likely, where Cheyne (1914) has Belial = Yerahme'el (Yahweh's companion angel) AND associated w/ the Garden of the Jerahmeelites (1902). Belial, like Horon/Azazael, is god of the scapegoat offering, and Azazael is further represented by the Serpent/Basilisk PLUS some myths of the Garden. Where form & function are largely identical, I suspect it's essentially the same god by varied names/locales.
Was Horon the Son of God? In Egypt, converted to either Herakles or Harpocrates, that may be true after c.350 BC.
In agreement w/ the thesis that "Baal Zeboul" is positively identified w/ "Phoenician Apollo" here, so these statues recently discovered in Israel are Hellenized relics of the persistent Horon cult under a new cover. (This makes perfect sense to me and I do agree.)
The Westminster Review, Vol. 54 [1851], p.162:
Where Baal Zeboul is Son of Baal-Shammin, so Belial would be the Son of Bel. Likwise, the Son of Ouranos (where Bel = Ouranos) should be Horon: the intermediary god & judging Savior/Destroyer worshipped by proto-Jewish mercenaries at garrisons on Egypt's borders. In Greek eyes, this Archer-God Horon would be Apollo. Egyptians would theoretically identify the same god as 'Horus' (Amun-Ra); in practice, an Egyptian Herakles also stood for the deity.
His Greek name is Apollyon, which might possibly link him with the god Apollo (Apollon) although the spelling here is Apolluon. The grasshopper or locust was one of the emblems of this archer god who poisoned his victims. This name may be introduced into our text with deliberate intent to identify one of the principal pagan gods with hell and destruction. Delphi was Apollo's chief oracular shrine and, as H.J. Rose avers, “ became the nearest approach to a Vatican which Greece possessed ... Delphi propaganda may be traced in the tendency to introduce Apollo as adviser, inspirer, etc. into any and every myth which contains a prophet or a prediction. [...] The role of the angel of the abyss may also be compared to that of Belial in the Qumran scrolls where he is mentioned some thirty-three times. He is the military leader of the forces of darkness, who is allowed to be “unleashed against” Israel; note the word “unleashed,” cf. Rev 9:15, CDC 4: 12–13. During the time of his dominion he spreads terror but does not against the sons of the covenant; cf 1QM 14:9-10. On the appointed day Yahweh, with the assistance of his angels, will destroy Israel's enemies, which are led by Belial. Belial himself and all his hosts will come to an end, as predicted in 1QM 18:1 (D-S) “ . . . when the great Hand of God is raised over Belial and over all the [lo]t of his empire to strike a final blow. ... " Cf. Belial bound in fetters in Testament of Levi 18:12 (c.25 AD), and cast into the fire in Testament of Judah 25:3 (c.25 AD). At this point, however, the reader is only introduced to the armies of Belial, probably to be identified with the angel of the abyss, under the guise of stinging animals. In 1QH 3:18 these subordinate spirits are called rühê, “Spirits of Vipers (or the Asp),” or possibly “Spirits of Nothingness," 'ep'eh , Ringgren , p.91. The Asp or the Viper occurs four times in the scrolls (1QH 2:28, 3:12,17,18) although some take the meaning to be "nought" rather than "viper"; Mansoor, p.114, note 7.
I wonder if "Spirits of Nothingness" are Wraiths of Oblivion. Belial is also associated w/ "faithless Jews". The mythology seems most closely linked to the Enochic/Sethian tradition. The Avenging Angel or Angel of the Abyss is Horon/Baal Zeboul, God of the Abyss. He is symbolized as a stinging swarm, poisoned arrows or hornets: Lord of Death, Destruction & Terror in His Negative Aspect. All of this long pre-dates the Jesus Christ mythos.
Totally different direction, now. The Synoptic Gospels state the rabbis said the Great Power of Jesus (the Nazorean, I accept) was none other than Baal-Zeboul, aka Horon, an ancient (Israeli) god of Semite mercenaries c.2,000 BC. Indisputably, Semitic Horon is demonstrated from dated archaeological evidence (in Egypt) yet a god still worshipped (in 'Israel') c.600-250 BC, however lately & partially assimilated to Eshmun (among other deities?).
Baal-Zeboul was a dual-natured deity, Savior but also a Destroyer, God of the Abyss, etc. Horon's connection to Belial looks very likely, where Cheyne (1914) has Belial = Yerahme'el (Yahweh's companion angel) AND associated w/ the Garden of the Jerahmeelites (1902). Belial, like Horon/Azazael, is god of the scapegoat offering, and Azazael is further represented by the Serpent/Basilisk PLUS some myths of the Garden. Where form & function are largely identical, I suspect it's essentially the same god by varied names/locales.
Was Horon the Son of God? In Egypt, converted to either Herakles or Harpocrates, that may be true after c.350 BC.
In agreement w/ the thesis that "Baal Zeboul" is positively identified w/ "Phoenician Apollo" here, so these statues recently discovered in Israel are Hellenized relics of the persistent Horon cult under a new cover. (This makes perfect sense to me and I do agree.)
This calls our attention to one great fact of primeval antiquity. It was a function of the priest to know and treat diseases. In every city of Judea were members of the sacerdotal caste of Zadokim, to act as officers. “To stand before the Lord,” meant to appear “before the priests and the judges" (Deut. 19:17). These priests were accordingly the physicians of the people; and a part of their functions were to prescribe for whomever they were required, gratuitously. When synagogues were established, they became the places of resort for the sick poor. The Rabanim and the Nevi'im [...] were expected to be healers as well as teachers; and the Essenean sect of Jews made the healing art a general accomplishment in their communities. They dwelt in the wilderness beyond the Jordan, and also in many parts of Galilee.
During the early periods of Hebrew history the previous population appear to have predominated in numbers, and, indeed, in influence. Jerusalem was never fairly an Hebrew city (Ezekiel 16:1). The people lived, as they always had, in separate communes, with a sanctuary and priests to every hill and high place, worshipping Baal and the Syrian goddess{i.e. Baalat-Gebal = Aphrodite Palaistine}. Baal, in his character of Baal Zebul, was the Phoenician Apollo, or Asclepius; hence his temples were consulted for medical advice ( 2 Kings:1).
During the early periods of Hebrew history the previous population appear to have predominated in numbers, and, indeed, in influence. Jerusalem was never fairly an Hebrew city (Ezekiel 16:1). The people lived, as they always had, in separate communes, with a sanctuary and priests to every hill and high place, worshipping Baal and the Syrian goddess{i.e. Baalat-Gebal = Aphrodite Palaistine}. Baal, in his character of Baal Zebul, was the Phoenician Apollo, or Asclepius; hence his temples were consulted for medical advice ( 2 Kings:1).
The Westminster Review, Vol. 54 [1851], p.162:
Baal is not improbably derived from the Hebrew XXX, bad, to burn or set on fire; and XX, Al, God, and may therefore be rendered Fire-god, or the God of Fire; answering to the Apollo of the Greeks. The name is variously written Bal, Bel, Baal, Belial, Baalzebub, Taali, Belenas, or Belanor, and has been further identified with the Moloch of the Old Testament by the title of Malkereth, Baal-Tsar, “King of the City, Lord of Tyre,” met with in a Maltese inscription; Moloch being a contraction of Malkereth. Baal-day, with the Tyrians, would be another name for Sun-day, the day consecrated to the sun.
In a secondary sense, Baal signifies a lord, or ruler; the sun being the great light created to rule the day; and we may observe here another instance of the names of days growing into arithmetical terms.
In a secondary sense, Baal signifies a lord, or ruler; the sun being the great light created to rule the day; and we may observe here another instance of the names of days growing into arithmetical terms.
The first is from Aramaic Balshatzar, Babylonian Baal tas-assar 'may Baal preserve his life', the second from Babylonian Baal shar-uzzur 'may Baal protect the king'. The latter was borne by the Chaldean king for whom Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall (Daniel 5)
Where Baal Zeboul is Son of Baal-Shammin, so Belial would be the Son of Bel. Likwise, the Son of Ouranos (where Bel = Ouranos) should be Horon: the intermediary god & judging Savior/Destroyer worshipped by proto-Jewish mercenaries at garrisons on Egypt's borders. In Greek eyes, this Archer-God Horon would be Apollo. Egyptians would theoretically identify the same god as 'Horus' (Amun-Ra); in practice, an Egyptian Herakles also stood for the deity.