mountainman

Close encounters with Roman demons of the third kind characterize both the letters of Paul and Pseudo Paul. The "Lord God Caesar <<<INSERT THUG-NAME HERE>>> was the head Roman demon. Did Paul and/or Pseudo Paul get an interview with the Lord God Caesar Nero?

GakuseiDon

Is this consistent with what we find in Paul, though? What I'm after is what is in Paul. Given what Paul says in 1 Cor 1 (which I gave earlier) about how God "brings to nothing the understanding of the prudent" and "where is the wise? where is the scribe?" etc, that matches with "wisdom of the rulers of this age" in 1 Cor 2 being the lack of human wisdom, which is why "had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." So we can see in Paul why human leaders wouldn't have crucified Christ if they had known who he was: they were ignorant, not evil.

But what about if "princes of this age" refers to demons? Is there anything in Paul's writings that would give a reason for why demons wouldn't have crucified Christ, if they had known who Christ really was?

It isn't an idle question. Paul doesn't use the word "daimones" once in all his letters, nor "unclean spirit". "Satan" is referred to about half-a-dozen times, principalities ("arche") once. Is there anything in Paul's letters that would supply a motive for why demons wouldn't have crucified Christ?

mountainman

The Concept of Our Great Power ---- NHC 6.4

In his book “Mental perception: a commentary on NHC VI, 4, The concept of our great power”, Francis E. Williams claims that the Archon of the West is actually a veiled reference to the Emperor Julian. However, it is far more reasonable to identify this Archon of the West as a veiled reference to the Emperor Constantine

Then the wrath of the archons burned. They were ashamed of their dissolution. And they fumed and were angry at the life. The cities were <overturned>; the mountains dissolve. The archon came, with the archons of the western regions, to the East, i.e., that place where the Logos appeared at first. Then the earth trembled, and the cities were troubled. Moreover, the birds ate and were filled with their dead. The earth mourned together with the inhabited world; they became desolate.

Constantine is known to have greatly troubled the cities of the Eastern Empire, both during his final military battle against the Eastern Emperor Lucinius, described by the historian Zosimus as "a great massacre"(about 34,000 dead), and after his supremacy. Thus it may be that this text is referring to Constantine’s victories from the perspective of those over whom he was victorious. The text continues …

Then when the times were completed, then wickedness arose mightily even until the final end of the Logos. Then the archon of the western regions arose, and from the East he will perform a work, and he will instruct men in his wickedness. And he wants to nullify all teaching, the words of true wisdom, while loving the lying wisdom. For he attacked the old, wishing to introduce wickedness and to put on dignity.

Constantine rose to power in the west and conquered the eastern regions with his army. From the perspective of the east, Constantine wished to nullify the ancient Hellenistic teachings and brought about an end to their traditionally revered “Logos”. Moreover the reference to "lying wisdom" and "introduction of wickedness" mirrors what Julian later writes concerning the "fabrication of the Christians” being “a fiction of men composed by wickedness". There can be no doubt that Constantine attacked the old traditions.


It is suggested therefore that when the wise citizens of the Roman Empire were asked who were the "rulers of this age" they would unanimously defer to the "Lord God Caesar", whoever that happened to be at the time. The New testament is after all is a greek text assembled for the edification of greek literate "converts". No self-respecting Greek academic however would have been interested in reading the bible. The Bible was underground before Nicaea and the Gnostic greeks had probably never heard of it. But everyone perhaps without exception knew who the "Lord God Caesar" was.


See Pontifex Maximus.

Eusebius would have us believe that the rulers of this age were not the Sacred Assembly of the Pontifices - the "Greek (Gnostic) priesthood" - and the network of academies such as that of Plato who focussed on the "Pontifex Maximus" Lord God Caesar, but rather the Apostolic lineage of the "Christian Bishops" who are devotedly focussed on the story of Jesus and the Twelve Aristotles. Those who believe Eusebius in this matter need their head read.

jgreen44

You misunderstand me. The theology of Paul was synthesized with the theology of the gospels via Church teaching. The Church has been telling us what Paul meant for nearly two millenia. This is how the Catholic version of Christianity won out over, assimilated or reconfigured Pauline or gnostic teachings. Other Christianities were destroyed in more ruthless ways. Some died natural deaths. But whereas there were once many Christianities competing with one another, eventually one version, by adaptation and force, outlived all of the others.

aa5874

OK. I think I understand you now. I think I get it.

You mean the Pauline writings in the NT Canon were LATE.

You mean the Pauline writings in the NT Canon were products of the Roman Church.

That is exactly what I understand.

jgreen44

The Pauline writings can be late. It even seems to me that they are late based on the simple fact that they were introduced by Marcion. But whatever their age, Marcion's involvement with the Pauline epistles tells me that the Pauline writings originally held a meaning substantially different from that which came to be taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
The end product, the Pauline epsitles as we know them now, are certainly a product of the Roman Catholic Church. That is to say I suspect the epistles contain many Church authored interpolations. But I also suspect the original author, the author of the earlier drafts, was not a Roman Catholic or did not tow the party line. I suspect the original author may have even been Marcion.

aa5874

But, apologetic sources have claimed that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings or the Gospels.

Please refer to sources of antiquity and NOT the opinion of people who have agendas.

Please read "Refutation Of All Heresies" 7.17, 7.18, 7.19, 7.25, and 7.26 by Hippolytus and "Against Celsus" 2.27 by Origen.

The Pauline Epistles and gLuke DO NOT contain the doctrine of DUALISM and Marcion's Christ was a Phantom.

The Pauline Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews.

Marcion's Christ was NOT the son of the God of the Jews.


But, according to some Church writers Paul lived about 100 years before Marcion, preached his gospel that Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews, shed his blood, died and was raised from the DEAD, and had churches all over the Roman Empire covering thousands of square of miles.

In the NT Canon, Paul was ALREADY PREACHING that Jesus the son of God of the Jews since the reign of Aretas c 40 CE, see 2 COR 12, and Marcion 100 years later was teaching that Jesus was NOT the son of the God of the Jews, see "First Apology" by Justin Martyr, so please tell me what early drafts could Marcion have of the Pauline doctrine 100 years LATER?

It would appear to me that Marcion was simply used by the Church to "historicise" the Pauline writings. But, in their haste to FALSELY claim Marcion was aware of the Pauline writing they overlooked the fact that other writers had already DISCUSSED the teachings of Marcion.

Marcion's Christ was NOT the son of the God of the Jews.

Marcion did not NEED the Pauline writings or gLuke.

Marcion used the DOCTRINE of EMPEDOCLES, the doctrine of DUALISM.

jgreen44

Are you familiar with Joseph B. Tyson's Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk)? He makes a pretty good case for a 2nd century origin.

jgreen44

If we read between the lines, perhaps.

Paul taught that the law was a curse and that only Christ's death could lift the curse and free humanity. I don't think demons would be happy about such a curse being lifted but....

None of the (demonic) rulers of this age understood it (Christ's mission and power), for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor 2:8)

"Apart from the ressurection, the crucifixion of Jesus would have been a triumph for the Rulers of this Age, namely the evil powers of the cosmos. But in the secret plan of God, devised in his wisdom, which was superior to the wisdom of the Rulers of this Age, Christ came forth victorious from their grasp. Death and the Grave had to surrender Him. The resurrection, therefore, was God's first decisive victory over Satan, from the time when the first man passed under his sway by obeying him rather than God....Inasmuch as it marks the initial act in the final overthrow of Satan, it therefore inaugurates 'the coming age'."

"...who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age," (Heb 6:4-5)

Paul's doctrine of redemption By Henry Beach Carré

show_no_mercy

Paul not knowing a demiurge makes 2 Cor 4.4 pretty ambiguous. Who is the "god of this age"? I'm guessing that this god was some sort of other god besides Paul's god. If Paul proposed a god of this age, and rulers of this age, it's certainly a logical implication that this other god ["of this age"] was the god of the rulers ["of this age"].

And then that makes for Marcion's (possibly original) reading of Eph 3.9 more consistent - that Jesus was hidden from the god who created all things; who was the god of this age. He was ignorant of it, just like his rulers (1 Cor 2.8).