the_cave

Hm, interesting, but why assume Beliar is from Sheol?

As you quote, the translation you're using says:

It is not clear whether "that world" is the same thing as Sheol.

Again, this is interesting, but I've never heard of Sheol being any other place besides beneath the surface of the earth.

Except he hasn't descended to Sheol yet. Why do you think his mission is complete?

Aha, I guess I don't.

I'm happy to ignore 11:2-22. Though I don't think we can say that there was nothing there in the original. We simply don't know what was there.

Ted Hoffman

GD,
Because the gospels have already decided who the earthly archon is.
Paul didn't write Acts.
You are influenced by the gospels. Paul never says this.
How useful is 'coulda' to this discussion?
Watch out then.
The redactor leads the readers to fill in the dotted lines. Apparently, that was enough for him.
Topic for another day and place.
GDon, I notice that you have distanced yourself from the use of archons in AoI - or have simply chosen not to respond to my arguments. Have we settled it that archon was 'spiritual' in AoI?

I repeat my earlier argument:
The cave,
Because he is the king of lawlessness or satan.
This is a red herring.
What you have never heard is irrelevant. Whats important is what AoI is stating. And its treating firmament synonymously with Sheol. You havent responded substantively to my arguments: just quips of "thats interesting", "I have never heard of that" etc.
Because at 10:29, he has reached Sheol. That was his mission. Or do you have any other misson from AoI?
Explain or support your position with reference to AoI.

Ted Hoffman

You what?

Rick Sumner

I'd like to know what neo-Platonic and Gnostic texts you're finding archontwn tou aiwnos toutou. You stated quite explicitly that there were "uses of the phrase" in them.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

the_cave

I think what's happening here is I'm reluctant to equate concepts in the first half of the text (1-5) with the second half (6-11) because it's my understanding that these were effectively separate texts that were later combined.

I agree that in the first half, Beliar is the ruler of this world, and lives in the firmament, above the earth. The text of the second half, on the other hand, seems confused on this point.

Huh? How come? Here is the line:

"Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go."

It could be that the firmament, "that world", and Sheol are all different places. Or, both "that world" and Sheol could be repetitions of the firmament. Or, perhaps the firmament and "that world" are separate places, and Sheol is only a repetition of "that world". I see no way of deciding based merely on the text.

Sure it is. On the one hand, I have every reference to Sheol I've ever seen. On the other hand, I have your unique theory. I'm not saying that means you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't have a lot of assurance that you're right.

As I note above, the text is ambiguous.

Geez, just trying to have a friendly conversation...

No, at 10:29, he has reached the firmament.

Ok: nowhere in AoI do the phrases "the ruler of this world" and "the angel in Sheol" coincide.

Ted Hoffman

Neo-platonic writings include the works (where existent) of Plotinus (Enneads - fifty treatsies), Iamblichus (Summary of Pythagorean Doctrines), Plutarch, Maximus, Apuleius, Aenesidemus, Numenius, Pantaenus (who formed the Alexandrian school of Christian proto-orthodox theology), Proclus (Theological Elements) and Porphyry (Against the Christians, Aphormai - an exposition of Plotinus' doctrines and De Antro Nympharum - an allegorical interpretation of Pagan beliefs). Later, we find Plutarch the Younger and Hypatia. Incipient Neoplatonic tradition also rubbed off Christian apologists like Clement of Alexandria and Origen thus we should expect to find neoplatonic expressions and thought in their works. And yes, we do.

Plotinus endeavoured to combat Stoicism and skepticism that had crept into interpretations of the philosophy of Plato. They (stoics and skeptics) bifurcated realms of being to dichotomies like good and evil, material and transcendent, universal and particular. Neoplatonist thought, contrary to the dualistic ones, had a mystical cosmology that started from the One, from which emanated the Logos and other 'levels' of reality and forms of being including the archons.

Christian Platonism of Origen and Clement had gnostic backgrounds and in a number is instances, we find marriages of gnostic and platonic thought.

Origen, in On First Principles, taught that Christ was a pre-existent soul (contrary to Ebionite beliefs) and claimed that Jesus became one with the Logos because he chose to cling to virtue:
On Archons:
Origen on the Fallen Angels

Texts criticizing the doctrines of gnostic sects like Marcionism, Valentinianism, Ophitism, Barbeloism, Manicheism, Priscillanism, Valeism, and Catharism can also reveal to us the usage of "archons". Gnostic currents were destroyed and texts containing their writings are scarce if not nonexistent. We largely learn about them from the works of their critics.

Sources

On Gnosticism and Gnostic Churches
Origen: On Principles
Catholic Encyclopaedia, Neo-Platonism
Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: Neo-Paltonism

Ted Hoffman

This is what I wrote earlier:
Now, this does not translate to me "stating quite explicitly that there were 'uses of the phrase' in them". I just said we would likely find relevant uses of the phrases in the works from those groups. I don't read Greek and have never studied those works and therefore wouldn't make such a bold claim as phrased by Rick.

Ted Hoffman

the cave,
I think its a bit late in the day to state this. If you stated it from the get go, it would have simplified things. But no matter.
What is your basis for thinking this?
Seems confused? If they are independent texts, how do you determine which one is confused and on what basis? Is it your assumption that there was a central source that articulated this mystical cosmogony that all people relied on it?
The very phrase "to the firmament and that world" indicates to us that "that world" is different from the firmament. Unless you want to argue that its an alliteration?
Does the text treat sheol and "the firmament" as different places anywhere?
Its not "my" theory I am just looking at the text and what it is stating.
Which text? You have stated that they are two independent texts brought together.
Your argument was that "It would be odd for the Lord to pass into Sheol without passing through the Earth first" where did you get this idea from if the text is so ambiguous?
10:8 says: "Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend"

10:29 says: "He descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world"

GakuseiDon

Acts uses "archons", not "archon". Can we say that there was a tradition, then, amongst HJers, that "archons" killed Christ from a certain point?

Well then. Then let's say that Paul was referring to "archons", meaning the rulers of the Jews and human rulers generally, i.e. people of authority who are to be "brought to nothing". In 1 Cor 2:6 to 2:8, Paul uses "of this world/age" 4 times: (NKJV)

6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

In this case, Paul is contrasting "human wisdom" ("the wisdom of THIS world") with the "hidden wisdom" of God.

So: we have an example in Acts of "archons" (of the Jews) being the ones who killed Christ, and examples where Paul is using "this world/age" referring to the Earth.

In 1Cor 2:6, Paul talks of the "rulers of this world" who are "coming to nothing". Compare that to 1Cor 15, where Paul says:

1Cor 15:23
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1Cor 15:24
Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The word "katargeo" is translated as "come to nothing" in 1Cor 2:6, and "put down" in 1Cor 15:24. It's clear that 1 Cor 15 is referring to (at least) human rulers. Given the context of "human wisdom" in 1 Cor 2, and the obvious reference to human rulers "coming to nothing" in 1 Cor 15, the context suggests that Paul is referring to human rulers.

What do you mean? What dotted lines? What was the redactor trying to say when he says that the Jews killed Christ under the influence of Satan?

Ted, "archon" is just a word that means "ruler" or "prince". That's all. AoI has:

15. And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.

16. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and I declare to the other prophets also who are standing by, that (this) hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.

17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized.

"All the princes and all the gods of this world". Can we agree that "the princes" here refers to our physical world?

Ted Hoffman

Wait, wait. I am arguing a certain position and you are challenging it. Are you seeking for a middle ground here?
If so, can I rephrase your question thusly:
"Can we say that there was a [MJ] tradition, then [later], HJers decided that earthly "archons" killed Christ from a certain point?"

If so, HELL YEAH!

And if my hell yeah is fine with you, this discussion is over and I am buying you beer <rolls down sleeves>. Welcome to Jesus Myth camp. :thumbs: