Jesus from Outer Space

[Irish1975]

to Irish1975,

Paul names Beliar/Belial in 2 Cor 6:15

What accord has Christ with Be'lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
Belial is a pagan god for Paul. Belial is used by Paul as representative of all pagan gods (or idols as in next verse: 2 Cor 6:16). There is nothing here to indicate Belial is a Satanic figure and co-ruler of this age.

Cordially, Bernard

Belial seems to represent wickedness, worthlessness, darkness in Jewish tradition before Paul, rather than foreign idols.

In this passage, Paul’s message is: don’t consort with unbelievers. In support of this argument he sets up 4 oppostions:

righteousness/iniquity
light/darkness
Christ/Belial
Temple of God/idols

With the last, he immediately clarifies that “we are the living temple of God,” so I don’t think he’s referencing pagan worship here in any practical way; it’s just a metaphor.

So I think it is more accurate to say that Beliar is a spirit of wickedness/worthlessness for Paul, contrasted with Christ and the spirit of righteousness. I don’t see a connection with idol worship, which is hardly an issue between Paul and his churches. Whether we can go further and say that Paul views Belial as one of Satan’s co-rulers of this wicked age depends on how much we think Paul was influenced by Jewish apocalyptic traditions, such as in the DSS, that portray Belial quite vividly in such terms:

You made Belial for the pit, angel of enmity; in darkness is his domain, his counsel is to bring about wickedness and guilt. All the spirits of his lot are angels of destruction, they walk in the laws of darkness; towards it goes their only desire.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

the "the weak and beggarly elements" were not the Pagan gods of Galatia.

You may be correct. From https://classroom.synonym.com/pre-chris ... 84980.html
"The pre-Christian Celts had a close affinity with the natural world, seeing spiritual forces in trees, lakes, stones, unusual land formations, weather patterns, seasonal changes, animals and the night sky. Ceremonies and practices to honor natural elements took the form of tree worship, sacrifices of goods to ponds, rivers and lakes, veneration of sacred springs and holy wells, and the formation of stone circles and burial mounds aligned with the annual path of the sun. (bolding mine)

They were the Jewish angels connected with the planets and adored by the Jews and Judaizers of Galatia. The same angels who gave the Law. They were PLANETARY Archons who rule this age.

And how do you know that?
Furthermore, these Galatians were not Jews prior to their conversion by Paul. So how could they have believed in Jewish angels?

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

So how could they have believed in Jewish angels?

they could be converted by a particular kind of Judaizers: the Elkasaites.

This Elchasai puts forward as a decoy a polity (authorized in the) Law, alleging that believers ought to be circumcised and live according to the Law, (while at the same time) he forcibly rends certain fragments from the aforesaid heresies. And he asserts that Christ was born a man in the same way as common to all, and that Christ was not for the first time on earth when born of a virgin, but that both previously and that frequently again He had been born and would be born. Christ would thus appear and exist among us from time to time, undergoing alterations of birth, and having his soul transferred from body to body. Now Elchasai adopted that tenet of pythagoras to which I have already alluded. But the Elchasaites have reached such an altitude of pride, that even they affirm themselves to be endued with a power of foretelling futurity, using as a starting-point, obviously, the measures and numbers of the aforesaid Pythagorean art. These also devote themselves to the tenets of mathematicians, and astrologers, and magicians, as if they were true.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050109.htm

For me, it is sufficient to point out that possibility, that there were Judaizers winning proselites among gentiles and imposing the observance of the Torah and in the same time the study of astrology and planets (note the reference to "foretelling futurity" and "astrologers"). How can you neutralize that possibility?

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

Bernard Muller wrote:
So how could they have believed in Jewish angels?

they could be converted by a particular kind of Judaizers: the Elkasaites.

This Elchasai puts forward as a decoy a polity (authorized in the) Law, alleging that believers ought to be circumcised and live according to the Law, (while at the same time) he forcibly rends certain fragments from the aforesaid heresies. And he asserts that Christ was born a man in the same way as common to all, and that Christ was not for the first time on earth when born of a virgin, but that both previously and that frequently again He had been born and would be born. Christ would thus appear and exist among us from time to time, undergoing alterations of birth, and having his soul transferred from body to body. Now Elchasai adopted that tenet of pythagoras to which I have already alluded. But the Elchasaites have reached such an altitude of pride, that even they affirm themselves to be endued with a power of foretelling futurity, using as a starting-point, obviously, the measures and numbers of the aforesaid Pythagorean art. These also devote themselves to the tenets of mathematicians, and astrologers, and magicians, as if they were true.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050109.htm

For me, it is sufficient to point out that possibility, that there were Judaizers winning proselites among gentiles and imposing the observance of the Torah and in the same time the study of astrology and planets (note the reference to "foretelling futurity" and "astrologers"). How can you neutralize that possibility?

The sect of the Elkasaites started either at the end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd (way beyond Paul's times), according to your aforementioned site:

[bishop of the church of Rome] Victor [189?–199 A.D ] sends Callistus to take up his abode in Antium,

(chapter 7)

Chapter 8. Sect of the Elchasaites; Hippolytus' Opposition to It.

The doctrine of this Callistus having been reported abroad throughout the entire world, a cunning man, and full of desperation, one called Alcibiades, dwelling in Apamea, a city of Syria, examined carefully into this business. And considering himself a more formidable character, and more ingenious in such tricks, than Callistus, he repaired to Rome; and he brought some book, alleging that a certain just man, Elchasai, had received this from Serae, a town of Parthia, and that he gave it to one called Sobiai.

Also, I don't like to deal with possibilities. But I observe that you have to fall down on a possibility to keep your belief that the archontes of 1 Cor 2:8 are heavenly demons.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Also, I don't like to deal with possibilities. But I observe that you have to fall down on a possibility to keep your belief that the archontes of 1 Cor 2:8 are heavenly demons.

the archontes are demons in virtue of the pure and simple fact that there is the genitive objective: "of this age". Period.
The fallen angels figure in the Ascension of Isaiah, also, hence no need of assuming a Paul ignoring Satan having angels under his power.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

the archontes are demons in virtue of the pure and simple fact that there is the genitive objective: "of this age". Period.

We went through that already. The genitive does not prevent these archontes to be human rulers (including Roman authorities: Ro 13:3) in the times of Paul.

The fallen angels figure in the Ascension of Isaiah, also, hence no need of assuming a Paul ignoring Satan having angels under his power.

What does Paul have to do with the Ascension of Isaiah? He is certainly not the one who wrote it.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

We went through that already. The genitive does not prevent these archontes to be human rulers (including Roman authorities: Ro 13:3) in the times of Paul.

it is genitive objective. It doesn't specify that the archontes are from this age. It specifies that the archontes rule this age. Hence, if the age is meant to represent the entire interval of time from creation until to present times, then the Romans couldn't be the archontes meant here.

What does Paul have to do with the Ascension of Isaiah? He is certainly not the one who wrote it.

the background myth (1 Cor 2:6-8) is the same: a deity unknown to the eyes of his killers; the plurality of the killers; even the phrase "what eye doesn't see" etc.

[Giuseppe]

Note that the evidence of demons behind "archontes of this age" is so strong that if in Romans 13:1-7 we would have had the same specifics "of this age", then without any esitation I would have concluded that there are no Romans meant in Romans 13:1-7, also.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

it is genitive objective. It doesn't specify that the archontes are from this age. It specifies that the archontes rule this age. Hence, if the age is meant to represent the entire interval of time from creation until to present times, then the Romans couldn't be the archontes meant here.

Emperor and kings and (for the Jews) chief priests & Pilate ruled this age. Even if "it does not specify ..." that does not mean these archontes are not from this age. Regardless of who crucified Jesus, "this age" included the times of this crucifixion.
"if the age is meant to represent the entire interval of time from creation until to present times, then the Romans couldn't be the archontes meant here." I asked you: where did you get that from? no answer. And I notice about the "if": you are not certain on one of your key argument!

Note that the evidence of demons behind "archontes of this age" is so strong that if in Romans 13:1-7 we would have had the same specifics "of this age", then without any esitation I would have concluded that there are no Romans meant in Romans 13:1-7, also.

Another "if". So if it was not about Romans, who would that be: Satan & his demons, or the chief priests or pagan gods.
Would Paul ask the inhabitants of Rome to obey and pay tax/tribute to those (who BTW were not known to carry a sword which would be used on wrongdoers)?
Your evidence of "demons behind "archontes of this age" is not strong at all, rather unexisting, as I have demonstrated.

the background myth (1 Cor 2:6-8) is the same: a deity unknown to the eyes of his killers; the plurality of the killers; even the phrase "what eye doesn't see" etc

But the same can be true if these archontes are Romans and chief priests.
BTW, Ascension of Isaiah does not have the beloved one/Jesus being killed by Satan & his demons.

Cordially, Bernard

[GakuseiDon]

But the same can be true if these archontes are Romans and chief priests.

The author of the Acts of the Apostles seems to think the same:

Acts 3.15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
16. And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
17. And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers [archōn].
...
Acts 4.8. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers [archōn] of the people, and elders of Israel,
9. If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10. Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, [highlight]whom ye crucified[/highlight]
...
24. And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
25. Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
26. The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers [archōn] were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28. For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

If the author of Acts had read Paul's letters, then I would have assumed that the author read an earthly meaning into "rulers of this age". Perhaps it changed from the cosmic meaning in Paul to an earthly one by the time of Acts. On the other hand, both seem to be consistent with rulers being earthly ones.