Galatians 2:20: was Paul living w/christ or hung on a cross?

docphin5

Well-known member
Per Lady Drower, “Transliteration of Aramaic into Greek constantly leads patristic writers astray; some Hebrew letters have no exact equivalent in the Greek alphabet.” (Drower, “The Secret Adam”, pg. 93). Moreover, metaphors and/or cultural context in Aramaic are sometimes lost when translated into other languages.

Galatians 2:20 is a case in point. There is an argument to be made that in the cultural context, faith, and Aramaic language within which the Nasaroeans lived, —in which Paul was immersed, one likely translation of the subject verse should be the following.

(Galatians 2:20) I have been crucified [am standing (or living)] with Christ and I [Paul’s ego] no longer live, but Christ lives in me.​

IOW, the statement by Paul has nothing to do with a Roman cross! Nothing. If true, it raises the question how many other things in Paul’s letters did the patristic translators get wrong?

So how does Drower explain where the patristic fathers went wrong?

She explains that in the Nasaraean faith the “The Great Life” without beginning and end descends upon the righteous elect making them alive too, versus being spiritually dead, aka, versus being consciously ignorant of the heavenly realm, virtues, and divine life. Therefore, being alive spiritually is metaphorically represented as “standing” versus lying dead or asleep on the ground. Key metaphor: spiritually alive = standing erect. In east Aramaic the word for “standing” is erroneously translated into the Greek word stauros, which means a standing pole (versus a lying one). Patristic fathers then move the meaning even further away from the original Aramaic meaning of “living” aka, “standing”, into its antithesis of being killed on a roman cross. Consequently, we have the absurd translation given to us by the translators of Paul’s epistles proclaiming he has been killed on a cross, ie., “crucified”, yet lives for Christ.

What he is really saying, in cultural, religious, and linguistic context is that, “I Paul am standing (or alive) due to Christ in me, and I, Paul no longer live for myself but Christ lives in me.”

It is all about being alive and living because the “Great Life” now lives in and through Paul. Here is the quote from Lady Drower. She was analyzing the clementine Homilies where Simon Magus (1) is describing “the Father” as “He who stood, stands, and will stand”.

“We have here a possible MIStranslation from the Aramaic. The Pa’el form of QUM [qaim (qayyim)] certainly mens ‘standing’. In Mandaic, in the “Commemoration Prayer” the words d-qaimia bpagraihun mean ‘who are living (alive) in their bodies’. In this sense the participle means ‘living’; conversely, ‘lying down’ and ‘sleeping’ are synonymous for death.” (Ibid, pg. 90).​
Again she explicitly writes elsewhere regarding divine inspiration,

“That divine inspiration arises from an indwelling of the Celestial Adam is a fundamental tenet of the Elkasite heresy (2). Simon the Magician, too, looked upon himself as an embodiment of, or as possessed by, the divine ‘Father’, the androgenous Father-and-Mother in One, when he calls himself ‘the Standing (ie., ‘living’, ‘persisting’) One’. (Ibid, pg. 92)​
Footnotes
1) Ferdinand Baur and his Tubin school deftly demonstrated that Simon the Magician is a cypher for Paul from the polemical side of the Jewish-christian faith. IOW, the Jewish-christains who opposed Paul, namely, Peter, used the name Simon as a cypher for Paul. Hence, in the homilies Peter refers to Paul as Simon the Magician. IMO, there is a reckoning coming, when the original gnostic Jewish-christians, specifically, John the Baptist and Paul, are justified through historical, archaeological, and scholarly investigation. It is all coming together.

2) The original meaning for the word ‘heresy’ is a new teaching. That is all it originally meant. Over time the word heresy became a pejorative associated with evil. But in comparative religion christianity started as a a heresy from the perspective of the Pharisees because it was a new teaching. Therefore, just because a prophet or teacher is is identified as teaching a “heresy” does NOT necessarily mean error, especially in light of the cultural, religious, and linguistic context.


 
Last edited:
Galatians 2:20 is a case in point. There is an argument to be made that in the cultural context, faith, and Aramaic language within which the Nasaroeans lived, —in which Paul was immersed, one likely translation of the subject verse should be the following.

(Galatians 2:20) I have been crucified [am standing (or living)] with Christ and I [Paul’s ego] no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
IOW, the statement by Paul has nothing to do with a Roman cross! Nothing. If true, it raises the question how many other things in Paul’s letters did the patristic translators get wrong?
Trying to figure out your point...but when I looked the word 4957. sustauroó is used in the verse.
 
This is nonsense.
An Aramaic speaking Nasaroen during the second temple period tells his Gentile friend that when “the heavenly Father” descends upon an individual in the community of believers, they become alive.

Greek friend asks how being alive within the faith is any different from those alive outside the community of believers.

The Nasaroen explains using an analogy where standing awake is contrasted to lying asleep on the ground. Non-believers who live are actually lying asleep like in a dream because this material world appears as ultimate reality, but our faith believes in a future existence outside our material world where the Father lives. We put our faith in him and he makes us alive to his kingdom.

Oh, so nonbelievers are asleep or dead to the kingdom of your father but you are alive and standing awake because of your faith in the Great Living One.

Exactly!

Gentile friend goes to his Greek speaking friends and tells them how the Nasaroeans claim to be standing awake and alive, like a pole (Greek: stauros), whereas, the non-believers are lying asleep.

Paul writes in Greek, The divine power within me is the standing (living, persisting) One (Galatians 2:20).

One hundred fifty years later the patristic fathers erroneously claim Paul is referring to the Roman cross, because Greek: stauros means a standing pole.

Two hundred years later the Roman church imposes their translations upon the Western world. The error sticks.

Two thousand years later archaeologists, bible scholars begin to unravel the errors introduced by the Roman church.

Now, critical thinkers, bible scholars face the proverbial challenge: publish and be damed a heretic by the orthodoxy or remain quiet.
 
Last edited:
Trying to figure out your point...but when I looked the word 4957. sustauroó is used in the verse.
Greek: stauros literally means an upright or standing pole.

stauroó: to fence with stakes, to crucify
Original Word: σταυρόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: stauroó
Phonetic Spelling: (stow-ro'-o)
Definition: to fence with stakes, to crucify
Usage: I fix to the cross, crucify; fig: I destroy, mortify.

But Bible translators have TREMENDOUS influence to lead people down the path they want by choosing the word their bias inclines them too. Then they write a thousand commentaries why they came to that conclusion. Consequently, Paul is attributed with claiming to be dead despite being alive. It is nonsense. They rationalize it as mortifying the flesh.

The Achilles heel in their translation is that they lack the cultural, linguistic context (use of metaphors lost in translation) that were being used. Translating from one language into another is much more difficult if the metaphors being used are not accounted for. In this case, standing/alive/awake versus lying/dead/sleeping.

To wit, is Paul killed on a Roman cross or is he standing erect, awake, and alive because of his heavenly Father? Per the Nasaroean faith, metaphor, and Aramaic language, the better meaning is the latter.

When challenged, Orthodoxy just retorts take our meaning or leave it and be damed a heretic. They claim Tradition is superior to archaeological evidence and reason, arguably, placing their tradition over the historical truth.
 
Last edited:
An Aramaic speaking Nasaroen during the second temple period tells his Gentile friend that when “the heavenly Father” descends upon an individual in the community of believers, they become alive.

Greek friend asks how being alive within the faith is any different from those alive outside the community of believers.

The Nasaroen explains using an analogy where standing awake is contrasted to lying asleep on the ground. Non-believers who live are actually lying asleep like in a dream because this material world appears as ultimate reality, but our faith believes in a future existence outside our material world where the Father lives. We put our faith in him and he makes us alive to his kingdom.

Oh, so nonbelievers are asleep or dead to the kingdom of your father but you are alive and standing awake because of your faith in the Great Living One.

Exactly!
Gentile friend goes to his Greek speaking friends and tells them how the Nasaroeans claim to be standing awake and alive, like a pole (Greek: stauros), whereas, the non-believers are lying asleep.

Paul writes in Greek, The divine power within me is the standing (living, persisting) One (Galatians 2:20).
Paul, a fluent Greek/Aramaic speaker, would write in Greek what he meant to say. That's what he did.
One hundred fifty years later the patristic fathers erroneously claim Paul is referring to the Roman cross, because Greek: stauros means a standing pole.
No. They relate it to a Roman cross because that's what the word means. Paul used the words he chose to convey the meaning he intended.
Two hundred years later the Roman church imposes their translations upon the Western world. The error sticks.
The original text exists for anyone to read. It means something like "I am crucified/I crucify myself". There was no error.
Two thousand years later archaeologists, bible scholars begin to unravel the errors introduced by the Roman church.
No error was made on this matter, except by you.
Now, critical thinkers, bible scholars face the proverbial challenge: publish and be damed a heretic by the orthodoxy or remain quiet.
Whether you are Orthodox or a heretic, your OP is incoherent nonsense.
 
Paul, a fluent Greek/Aramaic speaker, would write in Greek what he meant to say. That's what he did.

No. They relate it to a Roman cross because that's what the word means. Paul used the words he chose to convey the meaning he intended.
The Greek word stauros literally means a standing or upright pole. The historical metaphor associated with being awake, standing or alive, —not dead. In cultural, religious, and linguistic context, Paul is proclaiming himself alive due to the presence of a divine power living or persisting in him.

His meaning is obvious in light of the historical context.

The original text exists for anyone to read. It means something like "I am crucified/I crucify myself". There was no error.
The Roman church imposed upon the world a historical, literal meaning of the Gospels then subordinated Paul’s epistles to their position by mistranslating his original words and meaning. Whereas, the original jewish-christians knew the Gospels to be esoteric stories arguably based upon Paul’s exposition of the Nasaroen faith. The whole explanation goes beyond the scope of this OP. I only mention it because without the whole picture of the history of the early church (much of it suppressed or destroyed by the Roman church) then one is led into error.

No error was made on this matter, except by you.

Whether you are Orthodox or a heretic, your OP is incoherent nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Greek: stauros literally means an upright or standing pole.

stauroó: to fence with stakes, to crucify
Original Word: σταυρόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: stauroó
Phonetic Spelling: (stow-ro'-o)
Definition: to fence with stakes, to crucify
Usage: I fix to the cross, crucify; fig: I destroy, mortify.

But Bible translators have TREMENDOUS influence to lead people down the path they want by choosing the word their bias inclines them too. Then they write a thousand commentaries why they came to that conclusion. Consequently, Paul is attributed with claiming to be dead despite being alive. It is nonsense. They rationalize it as mortifying the flesh.
That's what he did. It is a metaphor that apparently you don't understand.
The Achilles heel in their translation is that they lack the cultural, linguistic context (use of metaphors lost in translation) that were being used. Translating from one language into another is much more difficult if the metaphors being used are not accounted for. In this case, standing/alive/awake versus lying/dead/sleeping.
Paul spoke both languages and wrote what he intended. Translators accurately interpreted what he wrote.
To wit, is Paul killed on a Roman cross or is he standing erect, awake, and alive because of his heavenly Father? Per the Nasaroean faith, metaphor, and Aramaic language, the better meaning is the latter.
In other words you believe that we should interpret the words that Paul wrote based on the misunderstanding of those words in another language by those holding a faith that Paul did not hold.
When challenged, Orthodoxy just retorts take our meaning or leave it and be damed a heretic. They claim Tradition is superior to archaeological evidence and reason, arguably, placing their tradition over the historical truth.
Why waste time typing this?
 
Greek: stauros literally means an upright or standing pole.

stauroó: to fence with stakes, to crucify
Original Word: σταυρόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: stauroó
Phonetic Spelling: (stow-ro'-o)
Definition: to fence with stakes, to crucify
Usage: I fix to the cross, crucify; fig: I destroy, mortify.

But Bible translators have TREMENDOUS influence to lead people down the path they want by choosing the word their bias inclines them too. Then they write a thousand commentaries why they came to that conclusion. Consequently, Paul is attributed with claiming to be dead despite being alive. It is nonsense. They rationalize it as mortifying the flesh.

The Achilles heel in their translation is that they lack the cultural, linguistic context (use of metaphors lost in translation) that were being used. Translating from one language into another is much more difficult if the metaphors being used are not accounted for. In this case, standing/alive/awake versus lying/dead/sleeping.

To wit, is Paul killed on a Roman cross or is he standing erect, awake, and alive because of his heavenly Father? Per the Nasaroean faith, metaphor, and Aramaic language, the better meaning is the latter.

When challenged, Orthodoxy just retorts take our meaning or leave it and be damed a heretic. They claim Tradition is superior to archaeological evidence and reason, arguably, placing their tradition over the historical truth.
I don't think Paul was claiming to have physically been crucified and died on a cross like Jesus did....it seems as if your commentaries have arrived at a strange biased conclusion....to lead people away from the salvation of the cross.
 
The Greek word stauros literally means a standing or upright pole. The historical metaphor associated with being awake, standing or alive, —not dead. In cultural, religious, and linguistic context, Paul is proclaiming himself alive due to the presence of a divine power living or persisting in him.
Paul explained what he meant by crucifixion in Gal. 4:13 "ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου" "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". And, by the way, a crucified person can be alive or dead.
His meaning is obvious in light of the historical context.
Yes. It is. It is the very one that has existed from the beginning.
 
I don't think Paul was claiming to have physically been crucified and died on a cross like Jesus did....it seems as if your commentaries have arrived at a strange biased conclusion....to lead people away from the salvation of the cross.
I highly doubt he is representing his source(s) accurately. It seems he is quoting portions of what others wrote for use in his own unique argument.
 
I don't think Paul was claiming to have physically been crucified and died on a cross like Jesus did....it seems as if your commentaries have arrived at a strange biased conclusion....to lead people away from the salvation of the cross.
salvation is from the heavenly Father’s presence in the believer’s soul, not from a piece of wood.
 
Paul explained what he meant by crucifixion in Gal. 4:13 "ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου" "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". And, by the way, a crucified person can be alive or dead.
According to the Talmud and the Dead Sea Scrolls the Teacher of Righteousness who lived at 100 BC, who established baptism and Lord’s supper, who led the Essenes, who arguably was known as John the Baptizer, -according to the Talmud was executed by the Pharisees by hanging on a tree and stoning. The Talmud identifies him with the name Yeshua. Maybe his name was John and he was called Yeshua according to the Hebrew type (aka, Joshua, son of Nun) or maybe his name was Yeshua and he was identified by the cypher John. Either way, there remains historically verified parallels between the two.

The point being that the anointed Yeshua whom Paul refers to in his letters likely was the Teacher of Righteousness, aka, John the Baptist whom the Essenes and later Nasaroens followed. An ascetic prophet living at Qumran and baptizing people in the Jordan. The reference in the OP comes from Drowers scholarly analysis of the Nasaroeans (aka Mandeans) originating in Palestine BEFORE christianity claims to have begun but subsequently emigrated to Parthia near the Euphrates River.

Yes. It is. It is the very one that has existed from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Except Jesus said that all believers must take up their crosses, die to self, and follow Him.

Paul is merely invoking the imagery.

People of the time knew that the cross was a brutal and toturous way to die, and in invoking it Christ was not saying to commit suicide in a brutal and torturous way, he was saying to deny one's self, however hard that may be, and follow Him, His will, His way.

Your attempt to discredit Scripture is typical of an atheist.
 
Except Jesus said that all believers must take up their crosses, die to self, and follow Him.

Paul is merely invoking the imagery.

People of the time knew that the cross was a brutal and toturous way to die, and in invoking it Christ was not saying to commit suicide in a brutal and torturous way, he was saying to deny one's self, however hard that may be, and follow Him, His will, His way.

Your attempt to discredit Scripture is typical of an atheist.
Except Paul never read or heard of the Gospel stories, for they were written long after his death. The GoJohn possibly written as late as the second century. so it is impossible that the Gospel stories served as context for Paul’s letters. What logically would serve as context to his letters is the pre-christian writings of the Essenes and the Nasaroens, Philo, and others. Taken together these pre-christian records paint an entirely different history and cultural context for the Jewish-christian sect from that held by traditional christianity. The Roman church subsequently suppressed and destroyed the historical facts in order to promote their own version of christianity. One that never happened.

The Gospel stories are esoteric stories, not historical events. Archaeological and critical scholarship have demonstrated this, yet the clergy keep teaching the same ol’ stuff as if it is history. The amazing thing is that Paul’s letters make more sense in light of the pre-christian writings. Logically that should work that way if christianity in fact developed from jewish-christianity existing up to 200 BC. IOW christianity had already been around at least a hundred years before Paul was even born making Paul’s anointed Yeshua likely the leader of the Essenes at Qumran. Talmud and dead sea scrolls supports this conclusion.

We can only understand Paul’s letters in light of the pre-christian writings which provide the cultural, linguistic, and religious context. Something the catholic church (and orthodoxy) continues to ignore, probably because they suppressed it many years ago.
 
Last edited:
Romans 6:6 Were we “living” with christ or were we hung on a cross?

If my OP is correct that the Greek word “stauros” used by Paul is a metaphor for ‘standing’, ‘living’, or ‘spiritually awake’ (versus lying, dead, or asleep) then Romans 6:6 should make more sense when translated in that way. Arguably, it does.

“We know that our old Man [Adam] was crucified [alive] with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.”

But first, one must know the cultural and religious context pertaining to who or what Adam is because Paul is likely writing to those Jewish-christians in Rome familiar with the cult of the heavenly Man (Adam) taught by the Essenes and/or Nasaroeans. Per Lady Drower,

“The central cult of both [Nasoraeans and Elkasaites] is the Heavenly Man, Adam. In the secret scrolls the ‘false prophet’ [alleged by Hippolytus] of the Elkasaites can be recognized as the Nasoraean Adam Kasai—no human but Man, Anthropos, the Son of Man, the Son of God; El Kasai. In his lower aspect he is the Demiurge, creator of ‘worlds of illusion, seven to his right and seven to his left’. In his higher and divine aspect he is Mankind anointed and crowned, priest and king, an image of the divine kingship. Above all, he is a sacramental symbol of union and resurrection: through the mystic recreation of his cosmic body, the departed soul receives its spiritual body.” (ibid, pg 97)
Therefore, Paul is describing the celestial Adam who died from before the foundation of our world (Rev. 13:8) and whose body of light transformed into lifeless matter. Subsequently, the moral consciousness which was once alive in the past, became alive in the present in us, especially, in Yeshua, the one who reminded humanity of its celestial source. Because the sacrament of baptism represents his cosmic death and resurrection then it also applicable to us as well, for we have always existed in his body even before the Big Bang when he was alive.

Returning to Romans 6:6, Paul is indicating that we were alive when Adam was alive as the cosmic son, and we died with him when he died at the foundation of our world (ie., the Big Bang), BUT when moral consciousness became alive in humanity, especially, in Yeshua, then the Son of God became alive again. That is US! —Cosmic Adam in his lower aspect.

I don’t expect you to understand this on the first pass through because you first have to unlearn the errors filling your head. The errors taught by the Catholic church. Simply, Paul is NOT talking about the human Adam in the Bible, but about the living celestial or cosmic Adam. Paul even explicitly states that the Biblical Adam is a “type” (Romans 5:14), therefore, not an actual historic human! Again, the Biblical Adam is a TYPE, and types are NOT historical persons. It is a fictional human for instructional purposes only. We-were-misled, but archaeology, critical scholarship, and comparative religion are giving us a chance to learn the truth. Don’t waste it. It may never come again.
 
Last edited:
good grief.
You lack the cultural, religious, and linguistic context that is needed to understand what Paul means. Moreover, you have been indoctrinated into error making the truth even harder to perceive because error now fills the space in your head where truth should rest. You can think the roman church for suppressing and destroying the historical truth.
 
You lack the cultural, religious, and linguistic context that is needed to understand what Paul means. Moreover, you have been indoctrinated into error making it even harder to perceive because error now fills the space in your head where truth should rest. You can think the roman church for suppressing and destroying the historical truth.
Sure, man. Whatever you say.

Jesus Christ believed Abel was real (Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51), the writer of Hebrews believed Abel was real (Heb 11:4).

Abel was the man Adam's son, not "a living celestial or cosmic Adam."
 
Back
Top