A New Bible Translation Reveals a Different Message of Paul

Doherty in his book, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus, makes the case that Paul’s epistles, unlike the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, portrays Jesus as a cosmic being who is crucified by another imperfect divine being, and that it is this cosmic event that was revealed to the apostles and prophets through spiritual insight using a pesher approach (i.e., allegorizing) of Jewish scriptures.

Most people do not know this because the epistles are commonly translated in a way to support a historical meaning to the Gospel stories, something Paul neither knows about nor writes about, because they were written after his death. But what Paul did actually write about when translated literally arguably references a cosmic event. In that case, the Gospels were written after Paul’s death to personify his conceptions of cosmic events into a mythical story for instruction. But when the mythical stories in the Gospels were later made historical by the Roman church then the true cosmic event perceived by Paul and the other apostles became subordinated to supernatural myths and superstitions through the process of translation, —hence, the point of the OP.

From Doherty, “All this [Paul’s conception of a cosmic event] fits into that most fundamental of ancient concepts outlined earlier: the idea that earth was the mirror image of heaven, the product of proceeding from the archetype, the visible material counterpart to the genuine spiritual reality above.” (Doherty, Kindle Locations 21392-21398)

All this should be relevant to a-theists because if there actually is an alternative meaning to Paul’s epistles that infers the existence of invisible universal principles affecting all life in this universe, wouldn’t you want to know? Presuming, of course, that it is better to consider invisible universal principles influencing all life in the universe (a real possibility) versus a superman flying through the air after reassembling his decomposing human body (an impossibility).

With that idea prefaced, then what did Paul actually write regarding the crucifixion of Jesus? Here it is from the new translation mentioned in the OP compared to the common translation. Clearly, the translators of the common translation want their readers to take a meaning of the "rulers of this age" to be Pontius Pilate and the Jewish Sanhedrin. But "Archons", what is that? What is the intended meaning of that?

1 Cor. 2:8, A New Translation1 Cor 2:8 ESV
“Which none of this age’s Archons knew; for had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;”“None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."


Per Doherty,
“There has not been a universal scholarly consensus on what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 2:6 and 8, but many commentators (1) over the last century, some reluctantly, have decided that he is referring to the demon spirits. The term aion, age (or sometimes in the plural, “ages”), was in a religious and apocalyptic context a reference to the present age of the world, in the sense of all recorded history. The next or “coming” age was the one due to follow the awaited Day of the Lord, when God’s kingdom would be established. One of the governing ideas of the period was that the world [this age] to the present point had been under the the control of the evil angels and spirit powers, and that the coming of the new age would see their long awaited overthrow.

Humanity was engaged in a war against demons, and one of the strongest appeals of the Greek salvation cults was their promise of divine aid in this war, on a personal level. Thus “rulers of this age” [archons] should not be seen as referring to the current secular authorities who happen to be in power in present political circumstances…Rather, Paul envisions that those in the present age who have controlled the earth and separated it from heaven, the evil angelic powers, are approaching their time of “passing away” (1 Cor. 2:6) and that they did not understand God’s purposes, namely their own destruction, when they inadvertently crucified “the Lord of glory.”


(Please note that terminology by Doherty involving “demons”, and “angels”, used above carry a lot of baggage in large part due to the mythical Gospel stories (e.g. superman Jesus making legions of demons doing his bidding). I recommend jettisoning the baggage that comes with those terms from the Gospel stories and look beyond them in the sense of Paul’s conception, that is, of invisible, universal influences upon life in this universe.)

(Ephesians 6:12, A New Translation) “Because we are wrestling not against blood and flesh, but against the Archons, against the Powers, against the Cosmic Rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the celestial places.

For the sake of brevity I am going to end here but Doherty goes on to extensively demonstrate that such a meaning of a cosmic event was accepted by some of the earliest church fathers, to include, Ignatius, and Origen, before Tertullian came along and dismissed it entirely. There is much more in the Nag Hammadi written by a diverse background of Christians and in the Dead Sea Scrolls written up to 200 years B.C. by a Jewish sect, namely, the Essenes. IOW, this conception of universal principles influencing life in our universe goes all the way back to second Temple Judaism before formal Christianity began.

Reference:
  1. Some of those who judge “rulers of this age” to be a reference to the demon spirits: S. G. F. Brandon ( History, Time and Deity , p.167), C. K. Barrett ( First Epistle to the Corinthians , p.72), Jean Héring ( The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians , p.16-17), Paula Fredriksen ( From Jesus to Christ , p.56), S. D. F. Salmond ( Expositor’s Greek Testament: Ephesians , p.284). Delling, in the article on “ archōn ” in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, p.488-9) regards the phrase “ tou aiōnos toutou ” as an objective, not a temporal genitive, and thus the term is “not, then, referring to earthly rulers” (n.7). Paul Ellingworth ( A Translator’s Handbook for 1 Corinthians , p.46) says: “A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here.”
I don't find the 'New Translation's' transliteration approach very helpful. I don't know why the translator is resisting offering a translation.

As for the remainder, I'm not sure that Doherty is a terribly credible source. But at 1 Corinthians 2:8 I would assume the reference is to mundane rulers, given Romans 13:3. and the reference to crucifixion.

Do you have any examples of ἄρχων being firmly used of 'spiritual' powers?
 
I don't find the 'New Translation's' transliteration approach very helpful. I don't know why the translator is resisting offering a translation.

As for the remainder, I'm not sure that Doherty is a terribly credible source. But at 1 Corinthians 2:8 I would assume the reference is to mundane rulers, given Romans 13:3. and the reference to crucifixion.

Do you have any examples of ἄρχων being firmly used of 'spiritual' powers?
Just off the top of my head here are three references from GoJohn. There may be more in the New Testament. I suggest reviewing the references provided by Doherty that I placed at the end of my previous post if you would like more details.

(John 12:31) “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler (Greek: archon) of this world be cast out.”

(John 14:30) “the ruler (Greek: archon) of this world is coming. He has no claim on me,”

(John 16:11) “concerning judgment, because the ruler (Greek: archon) of this world is judged.”

Keep in mind what I said in the previous post about the Gospel stories:
“the Gospels were written after Paul’s death to personify his conceptions of cosmic events into a mythical story for instruction.”

The point being that the words attributed to “Jesus” in the Gospels were actually written by Paul beforehand in his epistles. IOW, the author of GoJohn having Paul’s epistles before him composes a mythical account that personifies the inner Jesus (or Holy Spirit) of Paul speaking about Paul’s conceptions of an invisible, universal principle (aka, an imperfect divine entity) influencing life in our universe. To wit, Paul is the “light to the Gentiles”. It is Pauline theology revealing the end from the beginning and the Most High God’s plan to save humanity from the dominion of the the archon of this age.

(Gal. 4:14) “you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
 
Last edited:
There is a new translation of the New Testament called “The New Testament: a Translation” by David Bentley Hart which reveals an alternate meaning to what everyone has been told.
If The Bible is the single source of the word of God then maybe we should wait until they figure out the translation. If Christians disagree and find alternate meanings then it seems insane to base your life on The Bible.
 
If The Bible is the single source of the word of God
The Bible cannot be the only source for “the heavens declare the glory of God”. IOW, humans with no access to a Bible (eg Abraham, Buddha, etc.) can learn about the divine nature through nature, to include the nature within, specifically, that developing moral consciousness.
then maybe we should wait until they figure out the translation.
…or just keep doing what you have been doing: asking questions, challenging ideas, critically investigating what is true, until you either give up or are satisfied. I know you have it in you because it is in your genes.
If Christians disagree and find alternate meanings then it seems insane to base your life on The Bible.
Then grow that moral consciousness within yourself until you decide what to base your life upon. I am confident that if one does the former then the mind begins to perceive the the spiritual truths in the Bible. That was the method then as it should be now.

“be transformed by the renewal of your mind,” (Paul)
 
Last edited:
The following table compares the literal translation (“A New Translation”) described in the OP with a common translation. It serves as another example how a slight change in wording can make a huge difference in meaning. If you are open to a more rational alternative meaning then see below.


1 John 5:13, A New Translation1 John 5:13, ESV
We know that we are of God, and that the whole cosmos rests entirely upon the wicked one.”We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”

It might seem a subtle difference at first, but the distinction to be made hinges on the question
Is the “whole [material] cosmos resting entirely upon the wicked one”
OR
is the “whole [material] cosmos” merely influenced by “the power” of the wicked one?

(Please note that the words “the power” are added by translators of the common translation. They are not present in the Greek copies.)

If merely influenced by "the power of the evil one" versus "resting entirely upon the wicked one", then the material cosmos is presumably as good as it gets (and will presumably forever remain material),
BUT, IF
(the cosmos is) "resting entirely upon the wicked one" versus merely influenced by "the power of the evil one", then the entire material cosmos must be transformed (because it is fundamentally flawed, for it “rests entirely upon the wicked one.”).

The former presumes the material world fundamentally good and the principle forming it as fundamentally good, whereas, the latter presumes the material world as imperfect and the principle forming it as imperfect too. Put another way, The former view preserves only one creative principle, whereas, the latter presumes two creative principles, one associated with the imperfect material (sensible) world, in relative opposition to another principle associated with the ideal spiritual (intelligible) world.

Who cares, right?

Anyone who believes this material world operates according to specific natural laws and follows natural developmental processes.

If you are among those who cares like the diverse Jewish-Christians in the first century who perceived a world developmental process producing an imperfect result in the beginning, namely, an “abortion,” aka, a lifeless material cosmos, followed by a material life “cursed” with suffering and death, that is, the fate of humanity, then subsequent cosmic development of a moral consciousness and self awareness would be a critical developmental stage allowing for humans to perceive intelligible things not seen or felt by the senses. And it is in intelligible things unseen that the pious, virtuous mind of man engaged another principle influencing life in our universe for the good.

For example, from pondering intelligible things, to focusing more and more on the good things, to the Good One Himself, man reaches out and grasps what is eternal, and what is eternal reaches back. It is that union of the temporal and the eternal that propels the mind to perceive beyond a mere physical existence. This, I submit, was the view of the apostles. They were looking beyond a mere physical universe to an intelligible existence where the eternally Good One ruled free from negative material influences. IOW, they perceived and hoped for an intelligible world that only a mind could perceive. Whereas, this material world is currently ruled by the imperfect principle who formed it.

In that sense, "at the right time", when humans developed a moral consciousness, the Good One shares his knowledge with man ("Adam") of things unseen in order to remind "them" of what has been, what is, and what will be, given that there actually was an existence before a material world, and consequently, the possibility of a future free from a material existence. It is with that perspective that a Christian could write the following:

(Hebrews 11:1) “Now [rational] faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

I know that this may not be “proof” of “things hoped for” which a-theists insist upon, but at least it is an alternative meaning, arguably, the intended meaning, of world developmental processes in harmony with what we know to be true versus the common meaning requiring a superhuman overturning the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
The following table compares the literal translation (“A New Translation”) described in the OP with a common translation. It serves as another example how a slight change in wording can make a huge difference in meaning. If you are open to a more rational alternative meaning then see below.


1 John 5:13, A New Translation1 John 5:13, ESV
We know that we are of God, and that the whole cosmos rests entirely upon the wicked one.”We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”

It might seem a subtle difference at first, but the distinction to be made hinges on the question
Is the “whole [material] cosmos resting entirely upon the wicked one”
OR
is the “whole [material] cosmos” merely influenced by “the power” of the wicked one?

(Please note that the words “the power” are added by translators of the common translation. They are not present in the Greek copies.)
This is 1 John 5:19, rather than 5:13. As it is, I don't see any problem with the ESV here (the 'added' words are necessary, and such additions are routine in translating Greek to English). 'A New Translation' seems less appealing: 'rests entirely upon' is slightly emphatic, in the way the Greek isn't, and is a bit strange. In any case, it's certainly no more 'literal' than the ESV, and is arguably less so.
 
What few people realize is that translators have a tremendous power to shape the meaning during the process of translating from Greek into English.

This is why we must be careful in using a translation by just one person. He could be translating is such a way as to advance his personal opinions.
 
This is 1 John 5:19, rather than 5:13.
👍
As it is, I don't see any problem with the ESV here (the 'added' words are necessary, and such additions are routine in translating Greek to English).
That is the point of the OP, to identify the “added words” that change the meaning and identify the original literal meaning not being used, e.g., “abortion”, or “archon” (in their historical and cultural context) resulting in an entirely different meaning.

The author of this “New Translation” is highlighting that Paul’s epistles arguably reveal a different meaning than is commonly reflected in common translations. A meaning reflecting different ideas from diverse Christians from the first century regarding world developmental processes, duality, etc. He is not some extreme opinion either for The Youngs Literal Translation is similar and it has been around longer than this “New translation”. But given the discovery of the Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last century and the study of diverse Christian ideas from the first century, it seems prudent to take a fresh look at Paul’s epistles and the different meaning they hold.

Of course, there will be many scholars who choose to bury their head in the sand and keep repeating what has been taught for the last 1,800 years, eg., that the apostles all saw superman jesus walking through walls and flying in the air, versus they all PERCEIVED the ”archon of this age” (the archon forming the material world) produce an “abortion” (i.e., lifeless matter) which another creative principle, namely, the the indwelling “Yeshua” or Holy Spirit makes alive through development of a moral consciousness. Nevertheless, the entire material world is fundamentally flawed as it lies entirely within the wicked one. Consequently, the other creative principle promises a “new heaven and earth” made “new” from the old one, an intelligible, immaterial world perceived by mind alone. It is there that our souls are being gathered, our eternal home is there.



'A New Translation' seems less appealing: 'rests entirely upon' is slightly emphatic, in the way the Greek isn't, and is a bit strange. In any case, it's certainly no more 'literal' than the ESV, and is arguably less so.
 
Last edited:
👍

That is the point of the OP, to identify the “added words” that change the meaning and identify the original literal meaning not being used, e.g., “abortion”, or “archon” (in their historical and cultural context) resulting in an entirely different meaning.
But they haven't changed the meaning in this case: the ESV's is a fine translation of this verse, and arguably superior to the one you suggest as an improvement.
 
But they haven't changed the meaning in this case: the ESV's is a fine translation of this verse, and arguably superior to the one you suggest as an improvement.
That is what we are doing, right? Making our arguments for the “superior” meaning intended by the author, in this case, Paul.

Since I believe that a meaning is superior which does not conflict with what we know to be true then I am glad this discussion occurs in the secular forum, in case anyone is questioning my purpose in placing it here. Frankly, my audience is not the theists (IMO, their minds are hardened), but the rational atheists, because they prefer a meaning that does not conflict with reality, and Paul was very much a rational person. For example, He never taught a superman Jesus reconstituting his decaying corpse. Paul’s perspective in all his epistles was universal world development and his Christ “summed up all things.” (Ephesians 1:10). It is why he explicitly wrote about universal principles or concepts, using names like ”archon“ and “sophia.” They were the ideas circulating in his time.

Obviously, they are foreign to us today, mainly because translators tried to give them an earthly meaning for 1,800 years. Hence, we have most Biblical scholars, if not all, attributing Paul with saying he saw a superhuman rising from the earthly grave VERSUS perceiving a “miscarriage” with everyone else, an imperfect material world, created by an imperfect archon.” Only recent, new information discovered in the last few centuries (eg. Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, etc.) sheds light on his intended meaning.

Here is another example where a literal meaning of Paul’s words reveals concepts or ideas using names like “sophia” and “archons” to describe universal developmental processes, but you would not know it given the common translation.

1 Corinthian 2:6-8 (Docphin)1 corinthian 2:6-8 (common translation)
‘Yet among the mature we do speak of “Sophia”, though it is not the “Sophia” of this aeon or of the archons of this aeon, who are doomed to perish. But we speak of the holy “Sophia”, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the aeons for our glory. None of the archons of this aeon understood this.’Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this,

I cannot count the number of times that christians in this forum have used the common translation to deride scientists as the “wisdom of this world” when Paul actually intended the fallen “Sophia” as the name of the universal principle forming an imperfect result, ie., lifeless matter, aka, the “abortion” perceived by all the apostles.

Moreover, the risen “Sophia” applies to the inner moral consciousness developing in man, namely, Yeshua or Jesus.

“Christ,… the Sophia of God” (1 cor 1:24)
“Christ Jesus, who became to us Sophia from God” (1 cor. 1:30)

Where are the Bible scholars correcting the Christians misusing Paul’s terms? Noticeably silent. Why is a laymen like myself having to do the work that the Bible scholars should be doing?
 
That is what we are doing, right? Making our arguments for the “superior” meaning intended by the author, in this case, Paul.

Since I believe that a meaning is superior which does not conflict with what we know to be true then I am glad this discussion occurs in the secular forum, in case anyone is questioning my purpose in placing it here. Frankly, my audience is not the theists (IMO, their minds are hardened), but the rational atheists, because they prefer a meaning that does not conflict with reality, and Paul was very much a rational person. For example, He never taught a superman Jesus reconstituting his decaying corpse. Paul’s perspective in all his epistles was universal world development and his Christ “summed up all things.” (Ephesians 1:10). It is why he explicitly wrote about universal principles or concepts, using names like ”archon“ and “sophia.” They were the ideas circulating in his time.

Obviously, they are foreign to us today, mainly because translators tried to give them an earthly meaning for 1,800 years. Hence, we have most Biblical scholars, if not all, attributing Paul with saying he saw a superhuman rising from the earthly grave VERSUS perceiving a “miscarriage” with everyone else, an imperfect material world, created by an imperfect archon.” Only recent, new information discovered in the last few centuries (eg. Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, etc.) sheds light on his intended meaning.

Here is another example where a literal meaning of Paul’s words reveals concepts or ideas using names like “sophia” and “archons” to describe universal developmental processes, but you would not know it given the common translation.

1 Corinthian 2:6-8 (Docphin)1 corinthian 2:6-8 (common translation)
‘Yet among the mature we do speak of “Sophia”, though it is not the “Sophia” of this aeon or of the archons of this aeon, who are doomed to perish. But we speak of the holy “Sophia”, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the aeons for our glory. None of the archons of this aeon understood this.’Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this,

I cannot count the number of times that christians in this forum have used the common translation to deride scientists as the “wisdom of this world” when Paul actually intended the fallen “Sophia” as the name of the universal principle forming an imperfect result, ie., lifeless matter, aka, the “abortion” perceived by all the apostles.

Moreover, the risen “Sophia” applies to the inner moral consciousness developing in man, namely, Yeshua or Jesus.

“Christ,… the Sophia of God” (1 cor 1:24)
“Christ Jesus, who became to us Sophia from God” (1 cor. 1:30)

Where are the Bible scholars correcting the Christians misusing Paul’s terms? Noticeably silent. Why is a laymen like myself having to do the work that the Bible scholars should be doing?
This is fairly discursive. But you don’t seem to be responding directly to what I’ve said, and your own proposed translation here is just a series of transliterations, which is not to translate at all.

Beyond that, I seem to recall Paul only ever referring to himself as an ‘abortion’.
 
the rational atheists, because they prefer a meaning that does not conflict with reality, and Paul was very much a rational person. For example, He never taught a superman Jesus reconstituting his decaying corpse.

Anyone who is an atheist is denying the most important reality there is, the existence of God. If you read the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians you will find that Paul believed in the resurrection of Jesus. In fact he considered it the most important part of what he taught.
 
This is fairly discursive. But you don’t seem to be responding directly to what I’ve said, and your own proposed translation here is just a series of transliterations, which is not to translate at all.
It translates just fine if one knows the cultural, historical meaning from which Paul is sourcing his words. He is sourcing them from Jewish conceptions of universal principles affecting all life in the universe, e.g. "Sophia" and "Archon".

"Sophia" is the moral intelligence developing in humans specifically, and in the universe more generally, leading man to a saving form of self-knowledge revealed by the Divine. IOW, the development of a moral consciousness equates to the active presence of Sophia's creative input into the universe. She brings life to lifeless matter, aka, the resurrection of virtuous, "virgin" souls, "born-again" souls, from lifeless matter. Therefore, it would be a mistake to translate it in any other way.

"Archon" is the destroyer, the accuser, the despot who rules this material world. It would be a mistake to translate it in any other way.

Before anyone rejects the idea that Jews would view attributes of the Most High God, e.g. "Sophia", as acting separately from him, they should review the Dead Sea Scrolls written up to 200 B.C. which explicitly describe a duality of antagonistic universal principles immanent within the Divine. The Archon who forms the material world is opposed to the Holy Spirit who is trying to free humanity by developing a moral consciousness. Otherwise, those rejecting the gift of the Holy Spirit are trapped, accused and ultimately destroyed by the Archon forever.

For example, Hellenzied Jews in Alexandria before formal Christianity began wrote extensively of the Sophia who takes part in the creative process by developing a moral consciousness in humans (1). It is also expressed in the Protestant Bible (2). Paul equates this Sophia to "Jesus or Joshua the Anointed" according to the TYPE in scripture leading "his chosen ones into the promised land." (3) THERE WAS NO GOSPEL JESUS! Everything Paul wrote about was with a view of the universal Christ to include all things in heaven and earth (Ephesians 1:10). The church has been so indoctrinated to think that Paul was writing about the Gospel Jesus that they cannot see it any other way. Which is the point of this OP, that is, to demonstrate that there is another way to view what Paul actually wrote! --by taking into consideration the cultural and historical meaning of the words that he actually wrote versus how people like you were inculcated to "translate" his words into something that he did not mean.

1)
"For Wisdom (Greek: "Sophia") is mobile beyond all motion,
and she penetrates and pervades all things by reason of her purity.
25 For she is a breath of the might of God
and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
therefore nothing defiled can enter into her.
26 For she is the reflection of eternal light,
the spotless mirror of the power of God,
the image of his goodness.
27 Although she is one, she can do all things,
and she renews everything while herself perduring;
Passing into holy souls from age to age,
she produces friends of God and prophets." (Wisdom of Solomen 7:24-27)

2)
"When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the children of man." (Prov. 8:27)

3)
Christ,… THE Sophia of God” (1 cor 1:24)
“Christ Jesus, who became to us Sophia from God” (1 cor. 1:30)

Beyond that, I seem to recall Paul only ever referring to himself as an ‘abortion’.
What possible point is to be made by calling himself an abortion, and emphasizing it as something all the apostles perceived? --especially given the many references in the first century literature of the material world being formed, that is, "born" lifeless, like an "ABORTION" OR "MISCARRIAGE", just like Paul actually, explicitly, literally wrote in his epistle (1 Cor. 15:8). The word needs to be translated according to the cultural and historical context of Paul's time and NOT according to erroneous presumption that he is writing about the superman Jesus of the Gospel. The whole world has been misled by religious indoctrination and I am trying to free it, apparently without much success. Paul was writing about developmental world processes, to include most especially, the development of a moral consciousness, aka, "Sophia", "Joshua the Anointed", "Providence", "Mind of God", "Holy Spirit", etc., --IN humans. This is the first resurrection of the dead (from lifeless matter), of "the Anointed Joshua" or "Sophia" made alive in US!
 
Last edited:
It translates just fine if one knows the cultural, historical meaning from which Paul is sourcing his words. He is sourcing them from Jewish conceptions of universal principles affecting all life in the universe, e.g. "Sophia" and "Archon".
You aren't understanding. When you say 'sophia' and 'archon' and so on, you're just transliterating the Greek terms, rather than translating them. So your comments about it being a mistake to translate these terms in any other way are confused: you aren't translating them in the first place.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that these terms cannot be properly translated into English, and so we need to transliterate instead. I don't think that position is defensible, but at least it would make some sense.
What possible point is to be made by calling himself an abortion, and emphasizing it as something all the apostles perceived? --especially given the many references in the first century literature of the material world being formed, that is, "born" lifeless, like an "ABORTION" OR "MISCARRIAGE", just like Paul actually, explicitly, literally wrote in his epistle (1 Cor. 15:8).
Right: Paul refers himself to an 'abortion' (other translations are common) in that verse. You'd have to ask him what he meant by what he said, of course.
 
You aren't understanding. When you say 'sophia' and 'archon' and so on, you're just transliterating the Greek terms, rather than translating them. So your comments about it being a mistake to translate these terms in any other way are confused: you aren't translating them in the first place.
You are missing the point. Translating is more than just choosing a word for a word. Before picking a word translators first try to understand the general meaning of the passage usually applying an earthly meaning and many times lacking historical or cultural context. THEN they choose the words (from among many) that they think conveys the overall intended meaning. They also add punctuation which guides the meaning. so the process of translating takes in the entire process, to include presuming the general meaning, to picking a word, to adding punctuation.

So in my case, I recognized that “Sophia” is a title of a universal principle almost like a proper name. By not translating that word into an earthly term I retain the intended meaning of Paul and provide the superior translation of the overall passage. people read my “translation” and may perceive Paul’s intended meaning versus the common translation applying earthly meaning to every word resulting in the loss of Paul’s narrative of heavenly principals influencing life in our universe.

Here is another example.

Most people if not all people think Paul is talking about homosexuality in Romans 1:26. I do not think he is talking about homosexuality at all. The whole passage preceding that is a description of the fallen “anthropos” or “first Adam”, or archon, who separated from his consort, the holy spirit, and fell from heaven to become material things: corrupted human flesh, animals, and four-footed things, exchanging his perfect spiritual body for its earthly copies. It is a reference to Genesis 6 where fallen angels leave their heavenly abode to mix with the fleshy daughters of men. Consequently, nature was left without its consort, (the “first Adam” was originally a hermaphrodite being a union of male and female) hence, Paul’s statement: male with male and female with female, both becoming disfigured (“unseemly”) in the process.

Paul is building a case that all material flesh is imperfect being an abode of fallen cosmic principles. His point being that there is no place for Jewish particularism for Jews thought that they were special just by descent from Abraham and circumcised according to the flesh. Paul is reminding them where the material world came from and why their flesh, whether circumcised or not, is no more special than any of the Gentiles that they look down upon. Human sexuality has nothing to do with the passage but translators choose each word to make the overall meaning (translation) appear that it does. Paul is describing heavenly concepts, universal events, but translators turn the overall meaning into earthly things, in this case, human sexuality.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that these terms cannot be properly translated into English, and so we need to transliterate instead. I don't think that position is defensible, but at least it would make some sense.

Right: Paul refers himself to an 'abortion' (other translations are common) in that verse. You'd have to ask him what he meant by what he said, of course.
 
Last edited:
I do not think anyone on this planet has an “understanding and clarity of the imagery in Revelations”, especially you.

But this OP has nothing to do do with the Book of Revelations.
The key point is that the NT was writren mostly by Jewish writers and the love of God is how they describe it. The blood of Jesus is the sacrificial love of God for all, so the agape isnt standing side by side and looking out for others.
 
There is a new translation of the New Testament called “The New Testament: a Translation” by David Bentley Hart which reveals an alternate meaning to what everyone has been told. This is exciting for me because I discovered this after comparing young’s literal translation to all other translations and reading the Nag Hammadi (gnostic texts from the first and second century C.E.) which provides additional context for Paul’s letters that few know about.

What few people realize is that translators have a tremendous power to shape the meaning during the process of translating from Greek into English. So they end up producing a translation that most people would want to BUY ($$) and read versus what it actually means. In the process Paul‘s original message is barely recognizable.

IMO, this vindicates Paul who has been blamed for absurd ideas like substitutionary atonement, depravity of humans, and eternal hell.

Per the review,
Paul’s actual teachings, however, as taken directly from the Greek of his letters, emphasise neither original guilt nor imputed righteousness (he believed in neither), but rather the overthrow of bad angels. A certain long history of misreadings – especially of the Letter to the Romans – has created an impression of Paul’s theological concerns so entirely alien to his conceptual world that the real Paul occupies scarcely any place at all in Christian memory.

It is true that he addresses issues of ‘righteousness’ or ‘justice’, and asserts that this is available to us only through the virtue of pistis – ‘faith’ or ‘trust’ or even ‘fidelity’. But for Paul, pistis largely consists in [individual] works of obedience to God and love of others. The only erga, ‘works’, which he is anxious to claim make no contribution to personal sanctity, are certain ‘ritual observances’ of the Law of Moses, such as circumcision or kosher dietary laws.”

It also reveals that Paul talked a lot more about cosmic development through imperfect divine powers (eg, YHWH) than most people realize, much like the natural philosophers and gnostic Christians did when they spoke about the demiurge.

“The essence of Paul’s theology is something far stranger, and unfolds on a far vaster scale. For Paul, the present world-age is rapidly passing, while another world-age differing from the former in every dimension – heavenly or terrestrial, spiritual or physical – is already dawning. The story of salvation concerns the entire cosmos; and it is a story of invasion, conquest, spoliation and triumph. For Paul, the cosmos has been enslaved to death, both by our sin and by the malign governance of those ‘angelic’ or ‘daemonian’ agencies who reign over the earth from the heavens, and who hold spirits in thrall below the earth. These angelic beings, these Archons, whom Paul calls Thrones and Powers and Dominations and Spiritual Forces of Evil in the High Places, are the gods of the nations. In the Letter to the Galatians, he even hints that the angel of the Lord who rules over Israel might be one of their number. Whether fallen, or mutinous, or merely incompetent, these beings stand intractably between us and [the Most High] God [aka, the El]. But Christ has conquered them all.”

Reference
Everything you know about the Gospel of Paul is likely wrong
This seems to be another modern attempt to waterdown the gospel.
Its forgetting that whilst Paul spent most of his time in Greek lands and writing to churches there, he was Jewish, and expert in the law and prophets and also a Roman citizen, so one needs a holistic context.
So one example would be his translation of arsenokoites.. nope
 
So in my case, I recognized that “Sophia” is a title of a universal principle almost like a proper name. By not translating that word into an earthly term...
But you aren't translating the word into any term: 'sophia' is just the Greek word in a different alphabet.
 
After perusing the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, Hermetic literature, and literal meaning of Paul's epistles I propose the following concepts that were in the mind of the apostles which were subsequently banned by the Roman church (4th century C.E.) and rediscovered in the last century. They seem strange to us now because they were "lost" but maybe they shed new light on what scripture meant to those who wrote them.

Please note that the "foundation of our world", aka, the Big Bang, is included in the world developmental process, when the Lamb (the "body of Christ") was slain (Rev. 13:8)

Please note the Divine Triad: The God Most High, the Mind (or spirit) of God, and the Logos of God. It was the "Logos who became flesh" (John 1:14) and the spirit indwells him now.

Also please note that the ideal or perfect Man (First Adam) is a syzygy of moral intellect and substance who existed before our material world. Our physical bodies are actually descended from the "First Adam" which is why we are called "the Son of Man (First Adam)" while our souls arising with a moral consciousness is the "Last Adam". IOW, the pious, virtuous soul exists in the eternal age to come in the "Last Adam", whereas, our physical, material body dies with the "First Adam" in this age.


World Developmental ProcessesStepsUniversal Principles and Powers
Transcendent, Non-existence1I. The Good One, aka, the Most High God or the El, Father, Source of All Things
Emanation of Universal Principles into creation2II. Mind of the Most High God, Moral Consciousness or Intellect, aka, "Joshua the Anointed" >>>>>Union of Moral Consciousness and Substance, "First Adam", Perfect or Essential Human, hermaphrodite (male-female)III. "Word" (Greek: Logos), universal body (substance) and soul <<<<<<<<<<
Creation of Material World (Big Bang)3Creation of Material World (Big Bang)Creation of Material World (Big Bang):
"First Adam" transgresses. Separates from heavenly "Sophia (English: Wisdom)" becoming earthly "Folly". (1 corinthians 3:19)
Creation of Material World (Big Bang)
Material or Sensible Universe, aka, "Hades"4II. Heavenly "Wisdom" descends into this world taking on the form of a beast to "arise" as the moral consciousness in the soul's inner divine nature, aka, "Joshua the Anointed"
"Son of Man (Adam) and Eve" on earth separated in humanity as the moral consciousness (heavenly male) opposed by inordinate desires of the flesh (fallen substance or fallen heavenly principle) (Ephesians 6:12)
III. Logos descends or "falls" into materiality becoming the despot of the sensible world ("god of this age"), aka, the Adversary forming imperfect things based on his imperfect knowledge of heavenly things. (John 1:14, 3:16). Drags a third of the future heavenly host with him to earth.
Recall or Consummation of the Material World5"New creation" of the intelligible world, Joshua delivers his "chosen ones" to the promised land, according to the type in scripture. The beginning of the last age (Greek: aeon). >>>>>Reunion of Mind and Word; "Last Adam" (hermaphrodite), male-female. Universal principles: Moral Intellect, bringing order, harmony, rhythm to Substance and perfected Soul(s)End of the material universe, Hades destroyed (Rev 20:14). This material world burns up to make the "new creation" (2 Peter 3:10) <<<<<<<<<<<<
 
Last edited:
I know this post is a duplication of the previous one but I tried to make it more clear (for nonreligious personnel) in order to simply and concisely compare our actual existence we all live in versus the metaphorical religious jargon being used to describe it. The goal is to show how the religious jargon may actually represent things in existence we should be able to perceive.

I am particularly interested in a-theist comments to this method which translates the religious metaphors into things, concepts, or ideas applicable to our existence, to include our "past existence" and our "future existence." Would it at the least stimulate an interest for something to consider as a possibility (versus a mythical impossibility)?

Please note that all the steps on the left are within current reason and evidence except two rows (which I did not number, see ">>") but included to complete the picture from which the religious metaphors are derived. I concede that the two inserted rows (without number, see ">>") are inferred from reason and evidence but not "proven". IOW, you may reasonably reject them, but are essential for understanding the link to the metaphors.


Universal Development Process by Religious Metaphors

Universal Development ProcessReligious Metaphors
1. Preexistence (unknown)Ineffable "Father", Source of the All, Unbegotten One
2. Past Existence (Pre Big Bang) = past things + future thingsFullness (Greek: Pleroma), Ideal, Perfect "Man"
>>>"First Adam"* = "Mind", male, +++ "Word", female;
Moral consciousness +++ Substance/world-soul
3. Current Existence
3a. Foundation of our material world: "Big Bang"
Substance Only
Lifeless Matter
No moral consciousness
"Only Begotten One" (John 3:16)
"The Word (Greek:Logos) became flesh"
(John 1:14)
"Bodily death" of universal Christ
Body of Christ = "as to an abortion (“ektromati”), he [Christ] appeared to me [Paul] also."
(1 cor. 15:8)
Darkness, Ignorance, Suffering, Death
"Hades"
3b. Automatic development of life: Evolution
Development of souls
Moral consciousness arising in humans
"Self-begotten one"
"Mind of Christ" rising from the dead
"Born-again"
Rise of "Last Adam" in humans
"If then you have been raised with Christ."
(Colossians 3:1)
4. End of our Material World: Big Crunch"the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." (2 Peter 3:10)
5. Future Existence"we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13)
Fullness (Greek: Pleroma), Ideal, Perfect "Man"
>>>"Last Adam" "bodily resurrection of universal Christ";
Moral consciousness +++ substance/world-souls

* This is not the "Adam" in Genesis 2 but the "perfect Man" before the foundation of our world. The "Adam" in Genesis 2 is the image of the perfect man, --the image formed in the material world ("on earth") by the demiurge or archon of this material world. He is presumably trying to copy, but imperfectly, what the perfect man originally was. In that sense, the separation of male (moral intellect) from female (substance) is the cause of sin and death both in past existence and current existence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top